Astrazeneca AB & Anor v Apotex Pty Ltd; Astrazeneca AB & Anor v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd; Astrazeneca AB & Anor v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd

AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca Pty Ltd (the applicants) brought proceedings against Apotex Pty Ltd, Watson Pharma Pty Ltd, and Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd (the respondents) concerning alleged infringement of patent rights. The dispute centred on the respondents' proposed or actual marketing of generic versions of AstraZeneca's blockbuster drug, Crestor (rosuvastatin calcium), a statin used to lower cholesterol. The applicants sought interlocutory injunctions to restrain the respondents from infringing their patents. The matter proceeded to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondents' proposed or actual importation, supply, and sale of their generic rosuvastatin products would infringe AstraZeneca's Australian Patent No 690500. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondents' products contained rosuvastatin calcium as the active ingredient, and if so, whether this constituted infringement of the patent claims. A key issue was the interpretation of the patent claims and whether the respondents' products fell within their scope, particularly in light of AstraZeneca's assertion of infringement based on the presence of rosuvastatin calcium.

The High Court applied principles of patent law, including the construction of patent claims and the test for infringement. The court considered the evidence presented regarding the composition of the respondents' products and the scope of AstraZeneca's patent. The reasoning focused on whether the respondents' products contained the patented substance, rosuvastatin calcium, as claimed in the patent. The court analysed the evidence to determine if the respondents' activities constituted an infringement of AstraZeneca's exclusive rights under the patent.

The High Court granted the interlocutory injunctions sought by AstraZeneca, restraining the respondents from infringing Patent No 690500. The court found that AstraZeneca had established a strong prima facie case of infringement and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunctions to protect AstraZeneca's patent rights pending a final determination of the proceedings.