B Braun Melsungen AG v Terumo Corporation

Case

[2004] FCA 384

2 APRIL 2004


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
B Braun Melsungen AG v Terumo Corporation [2004] FCA 384 [2004] FCA 384 2 APRIL 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

B Braun Melsungen AG commenced proceedings against Terumo Corporation for patent infringement in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around Australian Letters Patent No 703988 (the Patent in suit) which B Braun claimed was infringed by Terumo’s Surshield Surflo II Safety Cannula and other intravenous catheters. B Braun sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent further infringement of the patent by Terumo and its affiliates, pending the outcome of the trial.

The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the infringement of the patent and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The court had to consider the likelihood of infringement, the potential harm to B Braun if the injunction was not granted, and the potential prejudice to Terumo if the injunction was granted. The court also had to consider the public interest in the resolution of patent disputes and the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the infringement of the patent and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court found that B Braun had made out a prima facie case of infringement and that the potential harm to B Braun if the injunction was not granted outweighed any potential prejudice to Terumo. The court also found that the public interest in the resolution of patent disputes and the importance of protecting intellectual property rights favoured the grant of the injunction. The court therefore granted the interlocutory injunction as sought by B Braun.

The court further ordered that the costs of the application be reserved and that the directions hearing be adjourned to 7 May 2004. The injunction was to remain in place until the trial of the proceeding or until further order. The court did not make any orders regarding damages or other remedies at this stage of the proceedings.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property Law

Legal Concepts

  • Patent Infringement

  • Injunction

  • Costs