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 Australian Patent No 577,762 (the patent). The patent relates to a method of treating cardiovascular disease by administering a specific dosage of a drug. The applicants sought interlocutory injunctions to restrain the respondents from infringing the patent by marketing and selling generic versions of the drug.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicants had established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to justify the grant of interlocutory injunctions. This involved determining whether the respondents' proposed generic products would infringe the patent, particularly in light of the respondents' arguments that their products would not fall within the scope of the patent claims. A key aspect of this determination was the construction of the patent claims and whether the respondents' proposed products would embody the essential integers of those claims.

The High Court considered the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, including the need for a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience. The Court analysed the evidence regarding the respondents' proposed products and the applicants' patent. It was held that the applicants had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the grant of interlocutory injunctions. The Court found that the respondents had raised arguable questions regarding the construction of the patent claims and whether their products would infringe. Consequently, the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of injunctions.

The applications for interlocutory injunctions were dismissed.