Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2006] FCA 1353

Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2006] FCA 1353

The foreign patent office communications and related documents were inadmissible because they were sought to be used on the only identified issue, construction of the Basic Patent, and amounted to opinions, submissions or evidence of intentions of the patentee or its agents. Their admissibility was not established by Ranbaxy's desire to contradict expert evidence. In any event, the Court would exclude the material under s 135(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because it raised a collateral issue likely to cause undue waste of Court time for little or no reward.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Evidence in Patent Proceedings / Objection to Admissibility of Affidavit Passages and Documents
Outcome
Warner-Lambert's objections were upheld and the identified affidavit paragraphs and documents were ruled inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'patent Construction' 'patent Office Communications' 'foreign Patent Prosecution Documents' 'affidavit Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135(c)']
['evidence' 'patents' 'intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'patent Construction' 'patent Office Communications' 'foreign Patent Prosecution Documents' 'affidavit Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135(c)']

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

Ruling on Evidence in Patent Proceedings / Objection to Admissibility of Affidavit Passages and Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether communications between Warner-Lambert or its agents and foreign patent offices were admissible as an aid to construction of Australian Letters Patent No 601981.' 'Whether the documents were admissible to rebut expert evidence that the Basic Patent would not be understood as limited to racemic mixtures only.' 'Whether the material should in any event be excluded under s 135(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The foreign patent office communications and related documents were inadmissible because they were sought to be used on the only identified issue, construction of the Basic Patent, and amounted to opinions, submissions or evidence of intentions of the patentee or its agents. Their admissibility was not established by Ranbaxy's desire to contradict expert evidence. In any event, the Court would exclude the material under s 135(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because it raised a collateral issue likely to cause undue waste of Court time for little or no reward.

Court Disposition

Warner-Lambert's objections were upheld and the identified affidavit paragraphs and documents were ruled inadmissible.

Orders

  • ["Paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of Mr Tye's first affidavit, paragraphs 20 to 28 of his second affidavit and paragraphs 5 to 7 of his third affidavit, and the documents referred to therein, are inadmissible."]