AstraZeneca AB v Medis Pharma Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 549

AstraZeneca AB v Medis Pharma Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 549

The applicants' ability to seek appropriate advice and provide informed instructions would be seriously impaired unless persons from within the applicants were included in the Confidentiality Club. The risk of inadvertent or accidental disclosure by Mr Sharkey, Mr McDonald and Mr Heifetz was relatively slight given their roles, professional standing, previous confidentiality experience, lack of relevant competitive decision-making, security arrangements and the applicants' undertaking to be liable for loss from disclosure. The balance justified including those three persons. The balance did not justify including Dr Stole because, although experienced and trusted, he was not a person...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application in Patent Infringement Proceeding Concerning Extension of Confidentiality Regime / Application by the Applicants for an Order Including Nominated Persons in the Confidentiality Club
Outcome
Application allowed in part; orders made to include Mr James Sharkey, Mr Benjamin McDonald and Mr Marcus Heifetz in the Confidentiality Club, but not Dr Einar Stole.
Legal Topics
['confidentiality Regime' 'confidentiality Club' 'in House Legal Advisers' 'confidential Information' 'patent Infringement Proceedings' 'interlocutory Procedure']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['confidentiality Regime' 'confidentiality Club' 'in House Legal Advisers' 'confidential Information' 'patent Infringement Proceedings' 'interlocutory Procedure']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Application in Patent Infringement Proceeding Concerning Extension of Confidentiality Regime / Application by the Applicants for an Order Including Nominated Persons in the Confidentiality Club

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the existing confidentiality regime should be extended to permit specified in-house or related legal advisers of the applicants to receive the respondent's confidential information." "How to balance the risk of inadvertent or accidental disclosure against the applicants' need to obtain advice and provide informed instructions in the proceeding." 'Whether each of Mr James Sharkey, Mr Benjamin McDonald, Mr Marcus Heifetz and Dr Einar Stole should be included in the Confidentiality Club.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' ability to seek appropriate advice and provide informed instructions would be seriously impaired unless persons from within the applicants were included in the Confidentiality Club. The risk of inadvertent or accidental disclosure by Mr Sharkey, Mr McDonald and Mr Heifetz was relatively slight given their roles, professional standing, previous confidentiality experience, lack of relevant competitive decision-making, security arrangements and the applicants' undertaking to be liable for loss from disclosure. The balance justified including those three persons. The balance did not justify including Dr Stole because, although experienced and trusted, he was not a person...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; orders made to include Mr James Sharkey, Mr Benjamin McDonald and Mr Marcus Heifetz in the Confidentiality Club, but not Dr Einar Stole.

Orders

  • ['Upon the applicants giving an undertaking to be liable for any direct or indirect loss, damages, costs or expenses to or suffered by the respondent in the event of disclosure of the confidential information by any of the persons referred to in the order to any person other than a member of the Confidentiality...