Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd

In the case of Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd, the appellants, members of the Pfizer group, sought an interlocutory injunction against the respondent, Apotex Pty Ltd, to prevent the alleged infringement of their patent for the use of pregabalin in the treatment of pain. The primary judge had previously refused the injunction, prompting the appeal. The central legal issues were whether the appellants had established a prima facie case for patent infringement and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction.

The court found that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the existence and strength of the prima facie case, which influenced his decision on the balance of convenience. The court concluded that an interlocutory injunction should be granted, although not in the exact form requested by the appellants. The court examined the evidence, including expert testimony from Dr. Jackson, who highlighted the importance of the treatment indications and approved product information in determining the scope of the patent. The court also considered the respondent's proposed written directions to doctors and pharmacists, which were seen as significant in mitigating the risk of infringement. Ultimately, the court found that the appellants had established a prima facie case of threatened patent infringement, and the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the interlocutory injunction.

The final orders of the court included allowing the appeal, setting aside certain orders of the primary judge, and granting an interlocutory injunction against the respondent from supplying specific products containing pregabalin. The court also addressed the costs of the interlocutory application, the application for leave to appeal, and the appeal itself, ordering that these costs be borne by the appellants. The court provided a mechanism for parties to apply for a different costs order within specified timeframes.