AstraZeneca AB v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 419

AstraZeneca AB v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 419

The respondent failed to present the applicants with a complete, unconditional offer to settle or sufficiently acknowledge the applicants’ legal entitlements before proceedings commenced; accordingly, the applicants are entitled to solicitor/client costs under s 19(2) of the Patents Act, and the court should not exercise its discretion under s 19(3) to displace this entitlement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property, Patent Infringement / Final Orders Following Settlement, With Disputed Questions of Costs
Outcome
Applicants succeed in claim for permanent injunctive relief; costs payable by respondent on solicitor/client basis under s 19(2) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['patent Infringement' 'costs (solicitor/client Basis)' 'section 19 Patents Act 1990 (cth)' 'court Discretion Under S 19(3)' 'injunctive Relief']
['intellectual Property'] ['patent Infringement' 'costs (solicitor/client Basis)' 'section 19 Patents Act 1990 (cth)' 'court Discretion Under S 19(3)' 'injunctive Relief']

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

Intellectual Property, Patent Infringement / Final Orders Following Settlement, With Disputed Questions of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants are entitled to solicitor/client costs under s 19(2) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)' 'Whether the court should exercise its discretion under s 19(3) of the Patents Act to depart from solicitor/client costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to present the applicants with a complete, unconditional offer to settle or sufficiently acknowledge the applicants’ legal entitlements before proceedings commenced; accordingly, the applicants are entitled to solicitor/client costs under s 19(2) of the Patents Act, and the court should not exercise its discretion under s 19(3) to displace this entitlement.

Court Disposition

Applicants succeed in claim for permanent injunctive relief; costs payable by respondent on solicitor/client basis under s 19(2) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['Respondent permanently restrained from infringing certain claims of AU 676337 and AU 695966 patents (orders 1 and 4)' 'Respondent restrained from obtaining PBS listing of products prior to expiry of patents (orders 2 and 5)' 'Respondent restrained from assigning ARTG registrations of products (orders 3 and 6)'...