Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 2)

In the matter of Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 2), the court was tasked with determining whether the injunctive relief previously granted to AstraZeneca AB should be varied. The dispute centred on AstraZeneca's claims of patent infringement by Apotex concerning the drug rosuvastatin. AstraZeneca sought to maintain the existing injunctions against Apotex, which were initially granted to prevent further alleged infringements until the final hearing of the matter.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the adequacy of damages as an alternative to the injunctive relief, and whether the grant of such relief should be maintained given the potential difficulties in calculating damages if AstraZeneca were to succeed at a final hearing. Apotex argued that AstraZeneca would be adequately compensated by an award of damages if it were successful, given its monopoly in the Australian market for rosuvastatin sales since 2006. Conversely, AstraZeneca contended that the complexities involved in calculating damages, including potential loss of market share, warranted the continued enforcement of the injunctions.

The court found that the evidence presented by Apotex did not sufficiently challenge the initial findings of Rares J, thus upholding the previous injunctions. The court also noted that similar issues would be addressed in forthcoming proceedings against other generic suppliers, which were scheduled for a hearing on interlocutory relief on 1 March 2012. Consequently, the court decided to adjourn the hearing of Apotex's motion to that date, treating it as a fresh application in light of the forthcoming proceedings.

The final order of the court was to adjourn the hearing of Apotex's motion to 10.15am on Thursday, 1 March 2012, aligning with the scheduling of the related interlocutory relief hearing in the other proceedings. The entry of orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.