FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Smithkline Beecham PLC v FH Faulding & Co Ltd [2004] FCA 999
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC & ORS v FH FAULDING & CO LTD & ORS
V105 OF 2003
FH FAULDING & CO LTD v BEECHAM GROUP PLC & ORS
N398 OF 2003
EMMETT J
2 AUGUST 2004
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
V105 OF 2003
|
BETWEEN: |
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC FIRST APPLICANT BEECHAM GROUP PLC SECOND APPLICANT GLAXOSMITHKLINE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED THIRD APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
FH FAULDING & CO LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT GENRX PTY LTD SECOND RESPONDENT FAULDING HEALTHCARE PTY LTD THIRD RESPONDENT
|
|
BETWEEN: |
FH FAULDING & CO LIMITED FIRST APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
BEECHAM GROUP PLC FIRST RESPONDENT SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC SECOND RESPONDENT GLAXOSMITHKLINE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED THIRD RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
EMMETT J |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The SB parties (applicants in V105 of 2003; respondents in N398 of 2003) have leave to file a notice of motion for further discovery returnable on 6 August 2004 at 9.30am.
2. The cost of the eCourt application for further discovery be reserved.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
|
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
V105 OF 2003
|
BETWEEN: |
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC FIRST APPLICANT
BEECHAM GROUP PLC SECOND APPLICANT
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED THIRD APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
FH FAULDING & CO LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT
GENRX PTY LTD SECOND RESPONDENT
FAULDING HEALTHCARE PTY LTD THIRD RESPONDENT
|
N398 OF 2003
|
BETWEEN: |
FH FAULDING & CO LIMITED FIRST APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
BEECHAM GROUP PLC FIRST RESPONDENT
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC SECOND RESPONDENT
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED THIRD RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicants (SB), who alleged infringement of their patents by the respondents, seek more particular discovery from the respondents (Faulding). The scope of the further discovery is set out in submissions of 16 June 2004, which incorporate reference to earlier correspondence between the parties concerning the question of further discovery. The dispute relates to three categories of documents as follows:
(a) the General Marketing Application submitted by Faulding in relation to the registration with the Therapeutic Goods Administration of the paroxetine hydrochloride tablets distributed by Faulding in Australia under various brand names;
(b) documents relating to the packaging and labelling of such tablets;
(c) correspondence between Faulding and its supplier of such tablets relating to matters other than the manufacture of such tablets.
2 Subsequent to the request for determination of the dispute, the solicitors for SB requested that the matter be deferred pending questions of further joinder of parties. The deferral is opposed by Faulding.
3 On the material presently before me, I am not persuaded that there should be orders for more particular discovery in respect of the categories of documents identified. The matter is listed for directions generally on 6 August 2004. If required I would give leave to SB to file and serve any notice of motion for further discovery returnable on that day. The costs of the eCourt topic to date should be reserved pending the determination of any such motion.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. |
Associate:
Dated: 2 August 2004
|
V105 of 2003 |
|
|
Solicitor for the Applicants: |
Allens Arthur Robinson |
|
Solicitor for the Respondents |
Freehills |
|
|
|
|
N398 of 2003 |
|
|
Solicitor for the Applicant |
Freehills |
|
Solicitor for the Respondents |
Allens Arthur Robinson |
|
Date of Hearing: |
2 August 2004 |
|
Date of Judgment: |
2 August 2004 |
