InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc (No 4) [2018] FCA 45

InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc (No 4) [2018] FCA 45

Because Pfizer's success on the interlocutory injunction application rested on a provisional assessment of invalidity issues and balance of convenience, and the patent might ultimately be held invalid at trial, the appropriate order was that each party's costs of that application be its costs in the cause. The interim injunction preserved the status quo after InterPharma commenced marketing without notice while Pfizer's interlocutory application was pending, so Pfizer should not be at risk of paying InterPharma's costs; Pfizer's costs of the interim injunction application were therefore its costs in the cause. InterPharma's application to discharge the interim injunction was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Patent Interlocutory Injunction Proceeding / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Costs orders made in relation to Pfizer's interlocutory and interim injunctive relief applications and InterPharma's interlocutory application to discharge the interim injunction.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Injunction Application' 'costs of Interim Injunction Application' 'costs of Application to Discharge Interim Injunction' 'usual Undertaking as to Damages']
['costs' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['costs of Interlocutory Injunction Application' 'costs of Interim Injunction Application' 'costs of Application to Discharge Interim Injunction' 'usual Undertaking as to Damages']

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 Determination in Patent Interlocutory Injunction Proceeding / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether InterPharma should pay Pfizer's costs of Pfizer's application for interlocutory injunctive relief dated 18 August 2017." "Whether the reserved costs of Pfizer's application for interim injunctive relief dated 6 September 2017 should be revisited and, if so, what order should be made." "Whether InterPharma should pay Pfizer's costs of InterPharma's interlocutory application dated 17 October 2017 to discharge the interim injunction."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Pfizer's success on the interlocutory injunction application rested on a provisional assessment of invalidity issues and balance of convenience, and the patent might ultimately be held invalid at trial, the appropriate order was that each party's costs of that application be its costs in the cause. The interim injunction preserved the status quo after InterPharma commenced marketing without notice while Pfizer's interlocutory application was pending, so Pfizer should not be at risk of paying InterPharma's costs; Pfizer's costs of the interim injunction application were therefore its costs in the cause. InterPharma's application to discharge the interim injunction was...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in relation to Pfizer's interlocutory and interim injunctive relief applications and InterPharma's interlocutory application to discharge the interim injunction.

Orders

  • ["Each party's costs of the application for interlocutory injunctive relief dated 18 August 2017 be its costs in the cause." "The costs of the cross-claimants' application for interim injunctive relief dated 6 September 2017 be the cross-claimants' costs in the cause." "The cross-respondent pay the cross-claimants'...