Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Patents [2012] AATA 281 (10 May 2012)
Practice and procedure – application for leave to rely on confidential documents – obligations of confidence – competing public interests in ensuring the proper administration of justice and in ensuring that contractual provisions as to confidentiality are duly enforced
In an interim decision relating to the ongoing efforts of Lundbeck A/S to obtain an extension of term of its patent no. 623,144 – which covers the S- or (+)-enantiomer of the antidepressant compound citalopram, marketed in Australia as LEXAPRO – the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has ruled to preserve confidentiality in a prior agreement between Lundbeck and Sandoz Pty Ltd by which earlier court proceedings seeking revocation of the patent were settled.
The issue before the Tribunal was this:
In this case the Tribunal found that breaking confidence was not justified, at least in-part because there is other evidence in the ongoing proceeding which will allow the same issues to be raised.
Practice and procedure – application for leave to rely on confidential documents – obligations of confidence – competing public interests in ensuring the proper administration of justice and in ensuring that contractual provisions as to confidentiality are duly enforced
In an interim decision relating to the ongoing efforts of Lundbeck A/S to obtain an extension of term of its patent no. 623,144 – which covers the S- or (+)-enantiomer of the antidepressant compound citalopram, marketed in Australia as LEXAPRO – the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has ruled to preserve confidentiality in a prior agreement between Lundbeck and Sandoz Pty Ltd by which earlier court proceedings seeking revocation of the patent were settled.The issue before the Tribunal was this:
When information pertinent to a decision exists in a confidential document (such as a confidential settlement agreement), is it appropriate – and, if so, in what circumstances – to grant leave for the confidential document to be used as evidence in the proceedings, thereby effectively breaking the original confidence?
In this case the Tribunal found that breaking confidence was not justified, at least in-part because there is other evidence in the ongoing proceeding which will allow the same issues to be raised.
