Orion Corporation v Actavis Pty Ltd (No 2)

Case [2015] FCA 1026


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Orion Corporation v Actavis Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2015] FCA 1026

Citation: Orion Corporation v Actavis Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1026
Parties: ORION CORPORATION AND OTHERS AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE v ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626 AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE;  ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626 AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE; ORION CORPORATION AND OTHERS AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
File number: NSD 2456 of 2013
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 16 September 2015
Cases cited: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253
Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236
Orion Corporation v Actavis Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 909
Date of hearing: 7 April 2015-17 April 2015
Date of last submissions: 24 August 2015
Place: Sydney (via video link to Perth)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 3
Counsel for the Applicants/Cross-Respondents: Mr C Dimitriadis SC with Mr C Burgess
Solicitor for the Applicants/Cross-Respondents: Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Respondents/Cross-Claimants: Mr SCG Burley SC with Mr JS Cooke and Mr D Larish
Solicitor for the Respondents/Cross Claimants: Ashurst

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 2456 of 2013

BETWEEN:

ORION CORPORATION AND OTHERS AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Applicant

ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626 AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Cross-Claimants

AND:

ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626 AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Respondent

ORION CORPORATION AND OTHERS AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Cross-Respondents

JUDGE:

RARES J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 SEPTEMBER 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO PERTH)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Until further order and except as provided in order 2, publication or other disclosure of the confidential annexure to the reasons for judgment of Justice Rares delivered on 16 September 2015 (the confidential annexure) and any information contained within the confidential annexure is prohibited.

2.Publication or other disclosure of the confidential annexure and information contained in it may be made to:

(a)persons authorised by the respondents/cross claimants;

(b)the external legal representatives, internal legal representatives, external patent attorneys and internal patent attorneys of the applicants/cross respondents who have signed a confidentiality undertaking in respect of documents designated by the respondents as confidential which were provided to Clayton Utz on 6 November 2013.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

3.The ground for orders 1 and 2 is that they are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 2456 of 2013

BETWEEN:

ORION CORPORATION AND OTHERS AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Applicant

ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626 AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Cross-Claimants

AND:

ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626 AND ANOTHER AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Respondent

ORION CORPORATION AND OTHERS AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Cross-Respondents

JUDGE:

RARES J

DATE:

16 SEPTEMBER 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO PERTH)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Following the publication of my reasons on the substantive issues on 21 August 2015 (Orion Corporation v Actavis Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 909), Actavis requested that I provide detailed confidential reasons for my conclusion that it had infringed claim 17 of the patent. I had invited any party to make such a request in my reasons at [136].

  2. I found that the method the subject of claim 17 does not involve an integer requiring the absence of the distinguishing aspect on which Actavis had relied to negate a finding of infringement.  I concluded that the additional integers in Actavis’ method do not make a new working of the combination of integers in claim 17 so as to make it non-infringing (see [136], [146]-[147]).

  3. I will annex to these reasons a confidential set of reasons for these conclusions, so as to continue the protection of the trade secret the subject of Actavis’ method.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.

Associate:

Dated:       16 September 2015


SCHEDULE

NSD 2456 of 2013

BETWEEN: 

ORION CORPORATION
First Applicant

NOVARTIS PHARMA AG
Second Applicant

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 004 244 160
Third Applicant

ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626
First Cross-Claimant

MEDIS PHARMA PTY LTD ACN 109 225 747
Second Cross-Claimant

AND:

ACTAVIS PTY LTD ACN 003 854 626
First Respondent

MEDIS PHARMA PTY LTD ACN 109 225 747
Second Respondent

ORION CORPORATION
First Cross-Respondent

NOVARTIS PHARMA AG
Second Cross-Respondent

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 004 244 160
Third Cross-Respondent

Details
AGLC
Orion Corporation v Actavis Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1026
Case
[2015] FCA 1026
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orion Corporation brought an action against Actavis Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking to prevent the alleged infringement of patents. The dispute centred on the validity and enforceability of certain pharmaceutical patents held by Orion, with Actavis contesting these claims and asserting its own counterclaims for patent invalidity and misuse. Justice Rares was tasked with determining the validity of the patents in question and whether they had been infringed by Actavis.

The court was required to address several key legal issues, including the interpretation of the patent claims, the assessment of whether there had been an infringement by Actavis, and the validity of the patents themselves. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate scope of confidentiality orders to protect sensitive commercial information that was part of the proceedings, particularly in light of the parties' ongoing patent disputes.

In delivering the reasons for judgment, Justice Rares first considered the technical details of the patents and the alleged acts of infringement by Actavis. The court found that while some of the claims were valid, others were not, leading to a partial victory for Actavis on the patent validity front. Regarding infringement, Justice Rares determined that Actavis had indeed infringed certain aspects of Orion's patents. The court also addressed the need for confidentiality, concluding that specific information must remain protected to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice and to safeguard the commercial interests of the parties involved.

The orders made by the court were designed to balance the need for transparency in judicial proceedings with the protection of sensitive commercial information. By prohibiting general disclosure of certain documents and information, while allowing limited disclosure to authorised parties, the court aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal process while mitigating potential harm to the parties' business interests. The court's decision underscored the importance of confidentiality in patent litigation, where commercial sensitivity is a significant concern.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Until further order and except as provided in order 2, publication or other disclosure of the confidential annexure to the reasons for judgment of Justice Rares delivered on 16 September 2015 (the confidential annexure) and any information contained within the confidential annexure is prohibited.

2. Publication or other disclosure of the confidential annexure and information contained in it may be made to:

(a) persons authorised by the respondents/cross claimants;

(b) the external legal representatives, internal legal representatives, external patent attorneys and internal patent attorneys of the applicants/cross respondents who have signed a confidentiality undertaking in respect of documents designated by the respondents as confidential which were provided to Clayton Utz on 6 November 2013.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

3. The ground for orders 1 and 2 is that they are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.