Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)

In Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd (No 2), the plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd, brought an action against the defendant, GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd, for alleged patent infringement. Reckitt alleged that GlaxoSmithKline's new syringe used in their Panadol Children's formula infringed upon their patent for a liquid dispensing apparatus. The case involved an interlocutory application for an injunction pending the outcome of the trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Reckitt had established a sufficiently strong prima facie case of patent infringement and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The key point of contention was the interpretation of the term "barrel" as used in the patent claim, specifically whether the tip of the new syringe should be considered part of the barrel.

The court found that the term "barrel" should not be interpreted as requiring uniformity in diameter throughout its length. The court was persuaded by the evidence of Reckitt's expert, Mr Tiller, who argued that the term "barrel" in the patent should be understood as a cylindrical object, which need not be uniform in diameter. The court considered that the new syringe, despite having a slightly different form from the preferred embodiment, contained all the essential features of the patented invention. The court concluded that Reckitt had made out a sufficiently strong prima facie case of patent infringement, and the balance of convenience warranted the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

Accordingly, the court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining GlaxoSmithKline from making, using, or selling the new syringe within the patent area without Reckitt's authorisation, pending the outcome of the trial. Costs were reserved for further determination.