Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation (No 2) [2017] FCA 589

No document has been directly mentioned in paragraph 6 of Professor Polli's affidavit, and thus the requirements of r 20.31 for production are not satisfied; application must be refused.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 26 May 2017
Procedural Posture: Application for Order for Production (interlocutory) / Determination of Application for Production (pre Trial)
Outcome: Application for an order for production refused
Legal Topics: ['order for Production' 'notice to Produce' 'expert Evidence' 'procedural Fairness']

['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['order for Production' 'notice to Produce' 'expert Evidence' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Order for Production (interlocutory) / Determination of Application for Production (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether documents are 'mentioned' in an affidavit for the purposes of r 20.31 of Federal Court Rules 2011" 'Whether prior expert evidence referred to in an affidavit triggers obligation to produce documents' 'Implications of implied Harman undertaking for document production']

Ratio Decidendi

No document has been directly mentioned in paragraph 6 of Professor Polli's affidavit, and thus the requirements of r 20.31 for production are not satisfied; application must be refused.

Court Disposition

Application for an order for production refused

Orders

["The applicant/cross-respondent's application for an order for production in terms of paragraph 2 of the Notice to produce a document in a pleading or affidavit dated 24 April 2017 be refused."]