GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited [2013] FCAFC 102

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited [2013] FCAFC 102

The Full Court found the primary judge erred in construing claim 1 by importing words not present and overestimating the strength of Reckitt’s infringement case. The Court also found error in exclusion of evidence relevant to the balance of convenience, particularly concerning alternative options and public safety. As a result, GSK’s case was stronger and warranted discharge of the interlocutory injunction, the appeal being allowed and costs awarded to GSK.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction in Patent Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Interlocutory injunction discharged. Leave to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
['patents' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'appeals' 'practice and Procedure']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['patents' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'appeals' 'practice and Procedure']

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

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction in Patent Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge correctly construed claim 1 of the patent in finding a prima facie case of infringement' 'Whether the primary judge erred in excluding evidence on balance of convenience' 'Whether the appellant was wrongly prevented from arguing lack of fair basis' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court found the primary judge erred in construing claim 1 by importing words not present and overestimating the strength of Reckitt’s infringement case. The Court also found error in exclusion of evidence relevant to the balance of convenience, particularly concerning alternative options and public safety. As a result, GSK’s case was stronger and warranted discharge of the interlocutory injunction, the appeal being allowed and costs awarded to GSK.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Interlocutory injunction discharged. Leave to appeal granted.

Orders

  • ['Applicant granted leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment and orders made on 8 July and 17 July 2013.' "Draft notice of appeal filed on 22 July 2013 stands as the appellant's notice of appeal." 'Appeal allowed.' 'Interlocutory injunction granted on 17 July 2013 discharged.' 'Paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the...