H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, H Lundbeck A/S filed an application against Alphapharm Pty Ltd concerning an application to withdraw an admission in their defence. The dispute centred on the status of H Lundbeck A/S as the exclusive licensee of a patent for the drug escitalopram, known as the Lexapro patent, in Australia. The issue arose after H Lundbeck A/S admitted that it was not the exclusive licensee of the patent from 14 June 2009 to 9 December 2012, but later sought to withdraw this admission. Alphapharm challenged the withdrawal, arguing that issue estoppel and abuse of process doctrines should prevent H Lundbeck A/S from changing its position.

The court was required to decide whether Alphapharm was estopped from questioning the status of H Lundbeck A/S as the exclusive licensee, and whether the withdrawal of the admission constituted an abuse of process. The court examined the principles of issue estoppel, which prevent a party from asserting a position that is inconsistent with a previous position they have taken, and the doctrine of abuse of process, which prevents a party from using the court process to achieve an unfair advantage. The court assessed whether the admissions made by H Lundbeck A/S were deliberate, clear, and unequivocal, and whether there were any special circumstances that justified the withdrawal.

The court found that Alphapharm was not estopped from questioning the status of H Lundbeck A/S as the exclusive licensee. The admissions made by H Lundbeck A/S were not unequivocal and were made in the context of a broader dispute over the validity and extension of the patent term. The court also determined that the withdrawal of the admission did not amount to an abuse of process. The court held that H Lundbeck A/S had not acted unfairly or improperly, and that there were no special circumstances that warranted preventing the withdrawal. The court's decision allowed H Lundbeck A/S to withdraw its admission, leaving the issue of its status as the exclusive licensee open for further determination in the proceedings.

The court ordered that Alphapharm Pty Ltd and/or Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd were not estopped from raising the issue of whether the Second Applicant was the exclusive licensee of the patent in dispute from 14 June 2009 to 9 December 2012. Additionally, the respondents were not precluded from placing the matter of whether the Second Applicant was the exclusive licensee of the patent in issue from 14 June 2009 to 9 December 2012 by reason of the doctrine of abuse of process. These orders clarified the legal positions of the parties and allowed the matter to proceed to further determination.