Apotex Pty Ltd v Cipla Limited [2017] FCA 1627

Apotex Pty Ltd v Cipla Limited [2017] FCA 1627

The interlocutory injunction was granted because Cipla and Meda had a very strong prima facie case of threatened infringement assuming validity, while Apotex's invalidity case was not shown to be strong: novelty was weak, manner of manufacture and inventive step were only reasonably arguable. Meda's status as an exclusive licensee was strongly arguable. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, as Apotex was not yet in the market, DYMISTA had been the sole product sold in Australia, refusal of relief was likely to cause immediate and significant loss to Meda and Mylan Health that was difficult to quantify, damages were not an adequate remedy, and the offered security...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Proceeding Involving Revocation and Cross Claim for Infringement or Threatened Infringement / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'prima Facie Case' 'patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'manner of Manufacture' 'inventive Step' 'novelty' 'balance of Convenience' 'exclusive Licensee']
['intellectual Property' 'patents' 'practice and Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'prima Facie Case' 'patent Infringement' 'patent Validity' 'manner of Manufacture' 'inventive Step' 'novelty' 'balance of Convenience' 'exclusive Licensee']

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

Patent Proceeding Involving Revocation and Cross Claim for Infringement or Threatened Infringement / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-claimants had a prima facie case of threatened infringement of Australian Patent No. 2003244799.' 'Whether Apotex had a sufficiently strong prima facie case that the asserted claims of the Patent were invalid for lack of novelty, lack of manner of manufacture or lack of inventive step.' 'Whether Meda A.B. was arguably an exclusive licensee with standing to seek interlocutory relief.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining Apotex from exploiting the Apotex Generic Products pending trial.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if interlocutory relief were refused or granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory injunction was granted because Cipla and Meda had a very strong prima facie case of threatened infringement assuming validity, while Apotex's invalidity case was not shown to be strong: novelty was weak, manner of manufacture and inventive step were only reasonably arguable. Meda's status as an exclusive licensee was strongly arguable. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, as Apotex was not yet in the market, DYMISTA had been the sole product sold in Australia, refusal of relief was likely to cause immediate and significant loss to Meda and Mylan Health that was difficult to quantify, damages were not an adequate remedy, and the offered security...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted.

Orders

  • ['Subject to order 2, pending determination of the proceeding or further order, Apotex, whether by itself, its directors, officers, servants, agents, related bodies corporate or otherwise, be restrained within Australia, without the licence or authority of the cross-claimants, from making or importing, selling,...