CSL Limited v Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 47

CSL Limited v Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 47

The applicants were unsuccessful on the principal order sought in paragraph 1(b), which was the order that would have had a material bearing on their interests. The paragraph 1(a) orders were mostly made by consent, and the remaining dispute about review by two European patent attorneys was not sufficiently separate or substantial, nor was the respondents' conduct sufficiently unreasonable, to justify a different costs order. Accordingly, the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Federal Court Proceedings / Determined on the Papers as to Costs After Dismissal of the Interlocutory Application Except to the Extent of Earlier Orders
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application dated 1 November 2013.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'discovered Documents' 'use and Disclosure of Discovered Documents in European Patent Office Proceeding' 'confidentiality Orders' 'cross Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'patent Litigation'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'discovered Documents' 'use and Disclosure of Discovered Documents in European Patent Office Proceeding' 'confidentiality Orders' 'cross Claim']

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

Interlocutory Application in Federal Court Proceedings / Determined on the Papers as to Costs After Dismissal of the Interlocutory Application Except to the Extent of Earlier Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the applicants' interlocutory application dated 1 November 2013." 'Whether the hearing before Davies J on 8 November 2013 about disclosure to two European patent attorneys warranted a different costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were unsuccessful on the principal order sought in paragraph 1(b), which was the order that would have had a material bearing on their interests. The paragraph 1(a) orders were mostly made by consent, and the remaining dispute about review by two European patent attorneys was not sufficiently separate or substantial, nor was the respondents' conduct sufficiently unreasonable, to justify a different costs order. Accordingly, the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application dated 1 November 2013.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the applicants' interlocutory application dated 1 November 2013, to be taxed in default of agreement."]