GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited v Generic Partners Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 100

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited v Generic Partners Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 100

In this case, the appeals and cross-appeals should be treated as separate events for costs. The issues in the appeals and cross-appeals were discrete, save for some overlap, and it would be inappropriate for the Court to impose a percentage reduction in costs without a reliable basis for apportionment. Accordingly, the Appellants should pay the Respondent its costs of the appeal, and the Respondent should pay the Appellants their costs of the cross-appeal.

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited; Appellant/cross Respondent: GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Limited; Respondent/cross Appellant: Generic Partners Pty Ltd (ACN 132 833 777); Respondent/cross Appellant: Apotex Pty Ltd (096 916 148)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Each party to pay the other's costs in accordance with the outcome of their respective appeal and cross-appeal in both proceedings.
Legal Topics
Costs, Patents
Intellectual Property Costs Patents

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited

Appellant/cross Respondent

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Limited

Appellant/cross Respondent

Generic Partners Pty Ltd (ACN 132 833 777)

Respondent/cross Appellant

Apotex Pty Ltd (096 916 148)

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Incidence of costs following appeal and cross-appeal in patent litigation where success was split between infringement and validity claims
  2. 2 Whether to treat claims and cross-claims globally or separately for costs purposes
  3. 3 Appropriateness of percentage reduction in costs

Ratio Decidendi

In this case, the appeals and cross-appeals should be treated as separate events for costs. The issues in the appeals and cross-appeals were discrete, save for some overlap, and it would be inappropriate for the Court to impose a percentage reduction in costs without a reliable basis for apportionment. Accordingly, the Appellants should pay the Respondent its costs of the appeal, and the Respondent should pay the Appellants their costs of the cross-appeal.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay the other's costs in accordance with the outcome of their respective appeal and cross-appeal in both proceedings.

Orders

  • The Appellants pay to the Respondent its costs of and in connection with the appeal.
  • The Respondent pay to the Appellants their costs of and in connection with the cross-appeal.