Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 3) [2006] FCA 1797

Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 3) [2006] FCA 1797

Because Ranbaxy succeeded on its separate amended application to revoke the Enantiomer Patent but abandoned three invalidity grounds shortly before trial causing costs to be thrown away, Warner-Lambert was ordered to pay only 60 per cent of Ranbaxy's costs of the amended application. Because Warner-Lambert obtained injunctive relief on its cross claim, Ranbaxy was ordered to pay Warner-Lambert's costs of the cross claim. Warner-Lambert achieved practical success on the notices of motion dated 20 October 2005 and 18 April 2006, but not on the notice of motion dated 24 May 2006, whose costs were included in the amended application costs order. The unopposed stay and extension of time to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Proceedings Involving an Amended Application and Cross Claim / Further Orders as to Costs, Stay and Extension of Time to Appeal After Judgment in Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd V Warner Lambert Company LLC (no 2) [2006] FCA 1787
Outcome
Further orders made for costs, stay of Order 1, and extension of time to appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'special Circumstances Affecting Costs' 'abandoned Grounds of Invalidity' 'reserved Costs of Notices of Motion' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'extension of Time to Appeal']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'special Circumstances Affecting Costs' 'abandoned Grounds of Invalidity' 'reserved Costs of Notices of Motion' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'extension of Time to Appeal']

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 Proceedings Involving an Amended Application and Cross Claim / Further Orders as to Costs, Stay and Extension of Time to Appeal After Judgment in Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd V Warner Lambert Company LLC (no 2) [2006] FCA 1787

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ranbaxy should pay Warner-Lambert's costs of and incidental to Warner-Lambert's cross claim." "Whether Warner-Lambert should pay Ranbaxy's costs of and incidental to the amended application, and whether those costs should be reduced because Ranbaxy abandoned grounds of invalidity shortly before trial." 'Whether Warner-Lambert should receive reserved costs of notices of motion dated 20 October 2005, 18 April 2006 and 24 May 2006.' 'Whether the revocation of the Enantiomer Patent should be stayed pending any appeal and whether time for filing a notice of appeal should be extended to 9 February 2007.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Ranbaxy succeeded on its separate amended application to revoke the Enantiomer Patent but abandoned three invalidity grounds shortly before trial causing costs to be thrown away, Warner-Lambert was ordered to pay only 60 per cent of Ranbaxy's costs of the amended application. Because Warner-Lambert obtained injunctive relief on its cross claim, Ranbaxy was ordered to pay Warner-Lambert's costs of the cross claim. Warner-Lambert achieved practical success on the notices of motion dated 20 October 2005 and 18 April 2006, but not on the notice of motion dated 24 May 2006, whose costs were included in the amended application costs order. The unopposed stay and extension of time to...

Court Disposition

Further orders made for costs, stay of Order 1, and extension of time to appeal.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 of the orders made by the Court this day be stayed until: (a) Friday 9 February 2007; or (b) if an appeal from these orders is lodged on or before Friday 9 February 2007, the determination of that appeal or further order.' 'The time for filing any notice of appeal be extended to 9 February 2007.' "The...