FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1139

Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2) [2009] FCA 1019 related   

LES LABORATOIRES SERVIER v APOTEX PTY LTD (ACN 096 916 148); LES LABORATOIRES SERVIER and SERVIER LABORATORIES (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 004 838 500) v APOTEX PTY LTD (ACN 096 916 148), SYMBION PHARMACY SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 000 875 034), CHEM MART PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 235 374), PHARMACOR LIMITED (ACN 121 020 835), GENEPHARM (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED (ARBN 003 854 626) and SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 004 118 594)

NSD 1036 of 2009

FOSTER J

6 OCTOBER 2009

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                  The application for leave to appeal filed by the respondent below on 18 September 2009 be heard concurrently with, or immediately before, the hearing of the appeal and any matters arising out of any Notice of Contention served by the respondent to the appeal.

2.                  The respondent file and serve any Notice of Contention by 9 October 2009.

3.                  The application for leave to appeal and the consequent appeal be included in the list of cases to be called over in the next available Full Court sittings.

4.                  The costs of the application for leave to appeal so far be reserved for disposition by the Full Court.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of a single judge of this Court made on 11 September 2009 (Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2) [2009] FCA 1019).  The effect of that decision was to dismiss a Notice of Motion filed by the respondent below (Servier), in which Servier sought to amend Australian Patent No 2001276418 (the AC patent).  In the proceedings below, the applicant there (Apotex) had applied for a declaration that the AC patent was invalid.  Servier had then sued Apotex and others for infringement of the AC patent.

2                     The judgment in respect of which leave to appeal is sought finally determines the form of the claims of the AC patent, as between the parties to the proceedings and all other persons.  It does, in that sense, affect the substantive rights of the respondent.  If the present application for leave is refused, then the proceedings below will proceed to a hearing on validity and infringement, based on a set of claims which do not take into account the claims the subject of the amendment application.

3                     The parties have agreed that the appropriate course is for the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, should leave to appeal be granted, be listed for hearing together and as soon as possible.  The reasons for this are obvious.  Such an approach will save the parties both time and money.  It will also minimise the risk that the Court will be required to rehear the validity and infringement claims should the appeal be successful.  

4                     For these reasons, I will make the orders which the parties have agreed should be made. 

Associate:

Dated:         8 October 2009