Ansell Healthcare Products LLC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 765

Ansell Healthcare Products LLC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 765

Reckitt did not provide direct evidence from relevant personnel as to how or why the original admissions were made or that they were inaccurate, other than for a specific particular. The applicants had prepared their case relying on those admissions, and permitting their withdrawal or expansion of invalidity particulars (to include new prior art) would cause undue delay, complexity and cost, contrary to the objectives of case management. The interests of justice required that Reckitt be held to its admissions (except as permitted regarding particular 13(vii)), but Reckitt should be granted leave to amend on non-contentious new legal grounds that would not delay trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Application to Withdraw Admissions and Amend Particulars of Invalidity
Outcome
Interlocutory application largely dismissed. Respondents refused leave to withdraw admissions (with a narrow exception) and refused leave to expand particulars of invalidity to add new items of prior art. Leave granted to raise certain new legal grounds in invalidity particulars. Costs orders made in favour of...
Legal Topics
['withdrawal of Admissions' 'pleadings' 'patent Infringement' 'particulars of Invalidity' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['withdrawal of Admissions' 'pleadings' 'patent Infringement' 'particulars of Invalidity' 'case Management']

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

Interlocutory Application in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Application to Withdraw Admissions and Amend Particulars of Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents should be permitted to withdraw admissions in their defence' 'Whether the respondents should have leave to amend their particulars of invalidity to add new grounds and prior art' 'Whether allowing withdrawal of admissions or expanding particulars would further the interests of justice and case management objectives under ss 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act']

Ratio Decidendi

Reckitt did not provide direct evidence from relevant personnel as to how or why the original admissions were made or that they were inaccurate, other than for a specific particular. The applicants had prepared their case relying on those admissions, and permitting their withdrawal or expansion of invalidity particulars (to include new prior art) would cause undue delay, complexity and cost, contrary to the objectives of case management. The interests of justice required that Reckitt be held to its admissions (except as permitted regarding particular 13(vii)), but Reckitt should be granted leave to amend on non-contentious new legal grounds that would not delay trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application largely dismissed. Respondents refused leave to withdraw admissions (with a narrow exception) and refused leave to expand particulars of invalidity to add new items of prior art. Leave granted to raise certain new legal grounds in invalidity particulars. Costs orders made in favour of...

Orders

  • ["Respondents pay applicants' costs of the interlocutory application filed 8 March 2016." 'Applicants granted leave to file and serve amended pleadings deleting references to claims 3, 4 and 8.' 'Respondents granted leave to file and serve amended defence and cross-claim only as permitted, including withdrawing...