Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd

In the case of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd, the parties, both multinational pharmaceutical companies, were in dispute over the validity of a patent held by Reckitt. The patent in question relates to a liquid dispensing apparatus, specifically detailing a bottle neck liner and a syringe design. GlaxoSmithKline (Glaxo) contested the patent's validity and accused Reckitt of infringing its rights. The court had to determine whether the patent was valid and if Glaxo had indeed infringed on Reckitt's patent.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved the construction of the patent claims and whether Glaxo's product anticipated the patented invention. The court examined the evidence provided, including a design from 1992 by Hubert De Backer NV (HDB), to determine if it anticipated the patented design. Glaxo argued that the 1992 plug design showed an inner step and a flared portion, but the court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove these features existed. The court also assessed the differences between the patented design and the alleged anticipatory design, concluding that they were fundamentally different.

Reckitt argued that the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory relief to prevent Glaxo from using the disputed bottle neck liner in its dosing system. The court agreed, noting the strength of Reckitt's case of infringement and the apparent weakness of Glaxo's grounds for invalidity. The court granted Reckitt the requested interlocutory relief, restraining Glaxo from using the contested bottle neck liner in its current dosing system. The decision was based on the likelihood that Reckitt would succeed at the trial and the potential marketing impact on both parties during the upcoming winter cold and flu season.