Janssen Sciences Ireland UC v Alphapharm Pty Ltd

Janssen Sciences Ireland UC filed a lawsuit against Alphapharm Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking an interim injunction to prevent Alphapharm from listing its generic pharmaceutical products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The dispute centres on whether Alphapharm's products infringe on Janssen's patents, specifically claims 14 and 15 of the '562 patent. The urgency of the application stems from the anticipated PBS listing of Alphapharm's products on 1 December 2017, which Janssen claims would cause irreparable damage.

The court had to decide whether Janssen had established a prima facie case for final relief, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim injunction. Additionally, the court had to consider Alphapharm's challenge to the validity of the patent claims. The court found that the interpretation of claims 14 and 15, as proposed by Janssen, was arguable and could likely succeed at the final hearing. The court also noted that Alphapharm's challenge to the validity of the claims would be better addressed at the final hearing.

The court granted the interim injunction, restraining Alphapharm from various acts related to the sale and supply of its products, including providing assurance of supply for PBS listing purposes. The court ordered Alphapharm to notify the Department of Health and the Minister for Health of the interim injunction. The court also noted several undertakings provided by Janssen, including a commitment to prosecute the claim for final relief expeditiously and to notify Alphapharm of any other potential infringers.

In summary, the Federal Court of Australia granted an interim injunction in favour of Janssen Sciences Ireland UC, restraining Alphapharm Pty Ltd from listing its generic pharmaceutical products on the PBS, pending the outcome of the final hearing. The court found that Janssen had established a prima facie case for final relief and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim injunction. The court also noted that the challenge to the validity of the patent claims would be better addressed at the final hearing.