Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (No 2)

Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, a pharmaceutical company, filed an application for preliminary discovery against Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd, a competitor in the biologics market, seeking disclosure of certain documents. The application was contested by Samsung Bioepis, and the matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary focus of the case was the interpretation and application of the Federal Court Rules 2011, specifically concerning costs orders and the principles of confidentiality in preliminary discovery proceedings.

The court was required to decide several legal issues, including the appropriate exercise of discretion in making costs orders under section 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and the principles to be applied when determining whether to impose restrictions on the disclosure of confidential information during preliminary discovery. The court also needed to consider whether a contingent costs order was appropriate given the substantial success of Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals in the application, despite it being contested.

The court exercised its discretion judiciously, taking into account the substantial success of Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals in the application, which was contested by Samsung Bioepis. The court determined that a contingent costs order was not appropriate and instead awarded Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals 50% of its costs. The court emphasised the need for confidentiality in preliminary discovery proceedings and imposed restrictions on the disclosure of certain information to protect the interests of both parties. The court outlined a process for the submission of costs, allowing both parties to provide written submissions and potentially respond to each other, before deciding whether to proceed to a hearing.

The court's orders included a timeline for the submission of written costs submissions and a procedure for determining the costs of the application. If no party filed written submissions in accordance with the specified timeline, certain orders would be made, and the question of costs would be addressed in separate orders. The court's approach ensured a balanced consideration of the interests of both parties while maintaining the confidentiality required in such proceedings.