Smithkline Beecham PLC v FH Faulding & Co Ltd [2004] FCA 999

Smithkline Beecham PLC v FH Faulding & Co Ltd [2004] FCA 999

On the material presently before the court, there should not be orders for more particular discovery in respect of the identified categories, but leave is given to file for further discovery at the directions hearing and the costs are reserved.

Parties
Applicant (v105 of 2003), Respondent (n398 of 2003): Smithkline Beecham PLC; Applicant (v105 of 2003), Respondent (n398 of 2003): Beecham Group PLC; Applicant (v105 of 2003), Respondent (n398 of 2003): GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Limited; Respondent (v105 of 2003), Applicant (n398 of 2003): FH Faulding & Co Limited; Respondent (v105 of 2003): GenRx Pty Ltd; Respondent (v105 of 2003): Faulding Healthcare Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Related Applications / Interlocutory – Application for Further Discovery
Outcome
Leave granted to applicants to file a notice of motion for further discovery returnable on 6 August 2004; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Discovery, Further Discovery, Directions Hearings
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Discovery Further Discovery Directions Hearings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smithkline Beecham PLC

Applicant (v105 of 2003), Respondent (n398 of 2003)

Beecham Group PLC

Applicant (v105 of 2003), Respondent (n398 of 2003)

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Limited

Applicant (v105 of 2003), Respondent (n398 of 2003)

FH Faulding & Co Limited

Respondent (v105 of 2003), Applicant (n398 of 2003)

GenRx Pty Ltd

Respondent (v105 of 2003)

Faulding Healthcare Pty Ltd

Respondent (v105 of 2003)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Related Applications / Interlocutory – Application for Further Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further and more particular discovery should be ordered in respect of three categories of documents
  2. 2 Whether the hearing of the application for further discovery should be deferred pending possible joinder of parties

Ratio Decidendi

On the material presently before the court, there should not be orders for more particular discovery in respect of the identified categories, but leave is given to file for further discovery at the directions hearing and the costs are reserved.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to applicants to file a notice of motion for further discovery returnable on 6 August 2004; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The SB parties have leave to file a notice of motion for further discovery returnable on 6 August 2004 at 9.30am.
  • The cost of the eCourt application for further discovery be reserved.