Sanofi v Parke Davis Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 9
The order of the Federal Court granting leave to appeal did not constitute a final judgment, as it did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties, and leave to appeal may be rescinded. Therefore, there was no right of appeal to the High Court and the objection to competency was upheld.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Objection to Competency
- Outcome
- Objection to competency allowed; special leave to appeal refused; appellant to pay costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['patents' 'extension of Term of Patent' 'appeals' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'competency of Appeal']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Objection to Competency
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an extension of time within which to lodge a petition for extension of a patent term can be granted after the patent has expired under s. 90 of the Patents Act 1952' 'Whether Parke Davis had a right to appeal to the Federal Court' 'Whether the order of the Federal Court was a final judgment permitting appeal as of right to the High Court']
Ratio Decidendi
The order of the Federal Court granting leave to appeal did not constitute a final judgment, as it did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties, and leave to appeal may be rescinded. Therefore, there was no right of appeal to the High Court and the objection to competency was upheld.
Court Disposition
Objection to competency allowed; special leave to appeal refused; appellant to pay costs.
Orders
- ['Objection to competency allowed' 'Special leave to appeal refused' 'Appellant to pay costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment