InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc (No 2) [2017] FCA 1280

InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc (No 2) [2017] FCA 1280

The costs of the interim injunction application should be reserved because the relief granted on 11 September 2017 was interim only, intended to preserve the status quo pending the interlocutory injunction hearing and to ensure that application was not frustrated; the hearing occurred on very short notice on the basis that a full interlocutory hearing would follow; and Pfizer would still need to establish at that hearing that relief should continue to trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Intellectual Property Patents Proceeding / Determined on the Papers After Grant of Interim Injunctive Relief and Before Hearing of Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
The costs of the application for an interim injunction were reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interim Injunction Application' 'interim Injunctive Relief' 'interlocutory Injunction Application' 'discretion as to Costs']
['costs' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['costs of Interim Injunction Application' 'interim Injunctive Relief' 'interlocutory Injunction Application' 'discretion as to Costs']

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

Costs Application in Intellectual Property Patents Proceeding / Determined on the Papers After Grant of Interim Injunctive Relief and Before Hearing of Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs of the application for an interim injunction should be reserved or whether InterPharma should pay Pfizer's costs." "How the Court's discretion as to costs should be exercised where interim injunctive relief was granted to preserve the status quo pending an interlocutory injunction hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The costs of the interim injunction application should be reserved because the relief granted on 11 September 2017 was interim only, intended to preserve the status quo pending the interlocutory injunction hearing and to ensure that application was not frustrated; the hearing occurred on very short notice on the basis that a full interlocutory hearing would follow; and Pfizer would still need to establish at that hearing that relief should continue to trial.

Court Disposition

The costs of the application for an interim injunction were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the application for an interim injunction dated 6 September 2017 be reserved.']