InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc [2017] FCA 1075

InterPharma Pty Ltd v Hospira, Inc [2017] FCA 1075

The Court granted interim injunctive relief because the cross-claimants established a prima facie case of infringement of the Patent, InterPharma's invalidity case could not be assessed on the evidence then before the Court, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the practical status quo where the cross-claimants had long been the sole distributors of dexmedetomidine in Australia. The likely harm to the cross-claimants from market disruption, price renegotiation, loss of market share and possible reputational damage outweighed the harm to InterPharma from being restrained until the interlocutory injunction hearing, and damages for the cross-claimants would be very difficult to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Interlocutory Injunction in Patent Proceedings / Interim Relief Pending Hearing and Determination of Application for Interlocutory Relief Fixed for 23 November 2017
Outcome
Interim interlocutory injunction granted.
Legal Topics
['interim Interlocutory Injunction' 'patent Infringement' 'pharmaceutical Products' 'dexmedetomidine' 'balance of Convenience' 'prima Facie Case']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['interim Interlocutory Injunction' 'patent Infringement' 'pharmaceutical Products' 'dexmedetomidine' 'balance of Convenience' 'prima Facie Case']

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 for Interim Interlocutory Injunction in Patent Proceedings / Interim Relief Pending Hearing and Determination of Application for Interlocutory Relief Fixed for 23 November 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-claimants had a prima facie case of infringement of Australian Patent No 754484 sufficient to support interim injunctive relief.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining InterPharma from making, marketing, selling, supplying, using or importing dexmedetomidine products pending the interlocutory injunction hearing.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if interim injunctive relief were refused.' "Whether InterPharma's invalidity contentions, including lack of novelty and lack of fair basis, defeated the prima facie case requirement at the interim stage." "Whether InterPharma's failure to clear the way before launching its products was relevant to the balance of convenience."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted interim injunctive relief because the cross-claimants established a prima facie case of infringement of the Patent, InterPharma's invalidity case could not be assessed on the evidence then before the Court, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the practical status quo where the cross-claimants had long been the sole distributors of dexmedetomidine in Australia. The likely harm to the cross-claimants from market disruption, price renegotiation, loss of market share and possible reputational damage outweighed the harm to InterPharma from being restrained until the interlocutory injunction hearing, and damages for the cross-claimants would be very difficult to...

Court Disposition

Interim interlocutory injunction granted.

Orders

  • ['Until the hearing and determination of the interlocutory relief application fixed for 23 November 2017, InterPharma is restrained within the patent area, without the licence or authority of the cross-claimants, from making, marketing, selling, supplying or otherwise disposing of any medicament for use in intensive...