Novartis AG v F H Faulding and Co Ltd [2004] FCAFC 254

Novartis AG v F H Faulding and Co Ltd [2004] FCAFC 254

The primary judge's exercise of discretion in refusing to determine preliminary questions separately before trial disclosed no error of principle or miscarriage, and no sufficient reason was advanced to justify appellate intervention; leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['patents' 'appeals' 'case Management' 'interlocutory Orders']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['patents' 'appeals' 'case Management' 'interlocutory Orders']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in declining to determine preliminary questions separately before trial under O 29 r 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted in relation to a practice and procedure order in a patent case']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge's exercise of discretion in refusing to determine preliminary questions separately before trial disclosed no error of principle or miscarriage, and no sufficient reason was advanced to justify appellate intervention; leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The second respondent pay the applicant's costs."]