H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the appellants, H Lundbeck A/S, and the respondent, Alphapharm Pty Ltd, in a dispute concerning the infringement of pharmaceutical patents. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to an appeal and cross-appeal by the appellants. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of certain patents held by the appellants and whether these patents had been infringed by the respondent.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of patent claims, the determination of whether the respondent's products infringed upon the appellants' patents, and the assessment of damages for any infringement that occurred. Additionally, the court had to consider the equitable principles applicable to the apportionment of costs between the parties. The appellants argued that the primary judge had erred in various respects, including the interpretation of patent claims and the calculation of damages.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the interpretation of the patent claims and found that the primary judge's interpretation was correct. The court upheld the primary judge's decision that the respondent's products did indeed infringe upon the appellants' patents. However, the court varied the primary judge's order regarding costs, reducing the percentage of costs to be paid by the appellants to 25% instead of 30%. The court also mandated that the appellants pay 50% of the respondent's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

Consequently, the court's decision resulted in an adjustment to the costs order, with the appellants required to pay 25% of the respondent’s costs instead of the initially ordered 30%. Furthermore, the appellants were also directed to cover half of the respondent's costs associated with the appeal and cross-appeal. This ruling reaffirmed the infringement of the patents and upheld the primary judge's interpretation of the patent claims, while also modifying the costs order to better reflect the circumstances of the case.