Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1390

Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1390

Because Maxor was publicly available and accepted to be the same as the Alphapharm product, the product itself and information discoverable by testing and analysis, its publicly disclosed ingredients, its Spanish country of origin, and the matters about the Brisbane tests disclosed in the revised infringement reasons were no longer confidential. However, confidential formulation and manufacturing information, quantitative formulation, and undisclosed precise manufacturing and Brisbane test details remained protected, and broader disclosure was not shown to be necessary for any appeal or to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice. The confidentiality orders and undertakings were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Proceeding With Cross Claim for Revocation; Application Concerning Confidentiality Orders and Undertakings / Post Judgment Application to Discharge or Vary Confidentiality Orders and Release Undertakings
Outcome
Application allowed in part; confidentiality orders and undertakings discharged only to the specified extent; no order as to costs of the applications heard on 27 September 1999.
Legal Topics
['continuation of Confidentiality Orders and Undertakings' 'restricted Publication' 'open Justice' 'confidentiality of Product Formulation and Manufacturing Information' 'release From Undertakings']
['practice and Procedure' 'patents' 'confidential Information'] ['continuation of Confidentiality Orders and Undertakings' 'restricted Publication' 'open Justice' 'confidentiality of Product Formulation and Manufacturing Information' 'release From Undertakings']

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

Patent Infringement Proceeding With Cross Claim for Revocation; Application Concerning Confidentiality Orders and Undertakings / Post Judgment Application to Discharge or Vary Confidentiality Orders and Release Undertakings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders and undertakings protecting information about the Alphapharm product should continue in force after Maxor became publicly available in Australia.' 'Whether information derived from samples, testing, ingredients, country of origin, manufacturing process, and Brisbane tests remained confidential.' 'Whether restricted publication remained necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice.' 'Whether and to what extent a revised version of the infringement reasons should be published.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Maxor was publicly available and accepted to be the same as the Alphapharm product, the product itself and information discoverable by testing and analysis, its publicly disclosed ingredients, its Spanish country of origin, and the matters about the Brisbane tests disclosed in the revised infringement reasons were no longer confidential. However, confidential formulation and manufacturing information, quantitative formulation, and undisclosed precise manufacturing and Brisbane test details remained protected, and broader disclosure was not shown to be necessary for any appeal or to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice. The confidentiality orders and undertakings were...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; confidentiality orders and undertakings discharged only to the specified extent; no order as to costs of the applications heard on 27 September 1999.

Orders

  • ["Orders 3 and 5 made on 23 October 1998, orders 6 and 7A made on 24 November 1998, order 1 made on 27 November 1998, order 5 made on 5 February 1999, and each other order made on Alphapharm's application concerning information claimed confidential were discharged to the specified extent." 'AB Hässle, Astra Hässle...