InterPharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1422

InterPharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2008] FCA 1422

Access to confidential information by two named in-house Lilly lawyers is appropriate given their legal roles, safeguards, undertakings, and slight risk to InterPharma, so long as the confidentiality regime and undertakings are suitably amended.

Parties
Applicant: InterPharma Pty Ltd; First Respondent: The Commissioner of Patents; Second Respondent, First Cross Claimant: Eli Lilly & Company; Second Cross Claimant: Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd; Cross Respondent: InterPharma Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Confidentiality Order Application in Ongoing Patent Litigation / Interlocutory, Reasons for Judgment Following Application for Expansion of Confidentiality Regime
Outcome
Access granted to the two in-house lawyers under an appropriately adjusted confidentiality regime, with parties to confer and submit final form of the document.
Legal Topics
Patent Litigation, Confidentiality Orders, Disclosure of Confidential Information, Safeguards for in House Counsel Access
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Litigation Confidentiality Orders Disclosure of Confidential Information Safeguards for in House Counsel Access

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

InterPharma Pty Ltd

Applicant

The Commissioner of Patents

First Respondent

Eli Lilly & Company

Second Respondent, First Cross Claimant

Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd

Second Cross Claimant

InterPharma Pty Ltd

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Confidentiality Order Application in Ongoing Patent Litigation / Interlocutory, Reasons for Judgment Following Application for Expansion of Confidentiality Regime

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should two in-house lawyers for a party be permitted access to confidential information under the existing confidentiality regime?
  2. 2 What safeguards are appropriate for such access in cross-border patent litigation?

Ratio Decidendi

Access to confidential information by two named in-house Lilly lawyers is appropriate given their legal roles, safeguards, undertakings, and slight risk to InterPharma, so long as the confidentiality regime and undertakings are suitably amended.

Court Disposition

Access granted to the two in-house lawyers under an appropriately adjusted confidentiality regime, with parties to confer and submit final form of the document.

Orders

  • Ms McGraw and Mr Caltrider to be brought within the confidentiality regime as in-house counsel for Lilly.
  • Parties to confer and forward agreed form of confidentiality regime to Associate.