Apotex Pty Ltd v Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals [2014] FCA 1150

Apotex Pty Ltd v Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals [2014] FCA 1150

The earlier filed material was relevant to Pfizer's knowledge at the relevant dates and to the objective question of best method, Pfizer had put the relevant factual matters in issue, the Eli Lilly applicant did not oppose access, confidential annexures were not sought, and open justice principles favoured inspection of material read in open court. Pfizer's claimed prejudice and the lateness of Apotex's application did not justify refusing access or leave to issue the subpoena, although any later attempt by Apotex to tender or deploy the material could justify tailored orders to address prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under R 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for Inspection of Documents in a Separate Finalised Proceeding and Application for Leave to Issue a Subpoena / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application and leave granted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['inspection of Documents on Court File' 'open Justice' 'leave to Issue Subpoena' 'prejudice and Delay' 'patent Invalidity Grounds of Best Method, Sufficiency and Fair Basis']
['practice and Procedure' 'patent Law'] ['inspection of Documents on Court File' 'open Justice' 'leave to Issue Subpoena' 'prejudice and Delay' 'patent Invalidity Grounds of Best Method, Sufficiency and Fair Basis']

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

Application Under R 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for Inspection of Documents in a Separate Finalised Proceeding and Application for Leave to Issue a Subpoena / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Apotex should be granted leave under r 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to inspect and photocopy earlier filed material from the Eli Lilly v Pfizer proceedings.' "Whether Apotex should be granted leave to issue a subpoena to Pfizer's former solicitor seeking production of the same or similar documents." "Whether Pfizer's asserted prejudice, the lateness of the application and case management considerations justified refusing access or leave."]

Ratio Decidendi

The earlier filed material was relevant to Pfizer's knowledge at the relevant dates and to the objective question of best method, Pfizer had put the relevant factual matters in issue, the Eli Lilly applicant did not oppose access, confidential annexures were not sought, and open justice principles favoured inspection of material read in open court. Pfizer's claimed prejudice and the lateness of Apotex's application did not justify refusing access or leave to issue the subpoena, although any later attempt by Apotex to tender or deploy the material could justify tailored orders to address prejudice.

Court Disposition

Application and leave granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Rule 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the Applicant have leave to inspect and photocopy the documents referred to in the written request to the Court dated 11 August 2014 made by Kane Wishart of Ashurst Australia, being documents from the Court file in proceeding VID 604/2002 Eli Lilly and...