Australia: Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement - Interlocutory Injunctions Now Easier To Obtain

Key Point

  • Three recent decisions indicate what matters will be relevant in granting an interlocutory injunction against the infringement of a pharmaceutical patent.

Traditionally, Australian courts have been reluctant to grant an interlocutory injunction against the infringement of a pharmaceutical patent. This has particularly been the case where the alleged infringer has raised serious questions as to the validity of the patent-in-suit, has undertaken to keep an account of its profits and appeared likely to be able to meet any financial award made against it at the final hearing. Recent decisions indicate, however, that at least some judges of the Federal Court are not so reluctant.

The principles governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction

It is well established that in order to be granted an interlocutory injunction, an applicant must establish:

  • that there is a serious question to be tried; ie., if the matter proceeds to a final hearing, there is a probability that the applicant for the interlocutory injunction will be successful;
  • that it will suffer irreparable harm for which damages will not be adequate compensation unless an interlocutory injunction is granted; and
  • that the balance of convenience favours the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

In a patent case, the first factor will depend on the applicant establishing that there is a serious question to be tried on the issue of infringement despite whatever evidence has been led on the issue of invalidity.

Recent cases

In the last two and a half years, the Federal Court has ruled on four interlocutory injunction applications in pharmaceutical patent cases. In three of those four cases, the Court granted an interlocutory injunction. The factors that each of those Courts considered significant in granting such an injunction are discussed below.

GenRx Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis [2007] FCA 1485 (21 September 2007)

In the GenRx case, the most recent of this trilogy, the Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining GenRx from infringing Sanofi-Aventis' Australian patent relating to clopidogrel, the active ingredient in Sanofi's Plavix product. GenRx commenced proceedings seeking revocation of the Clopidogrel Patent one day before it obtained registration of its generic clopidogrel product on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods ("ARTG"). Sanofi brought a cross-claim for infringement and an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining infringement of the Clopidogrel Patent. GenRx conceded infringement for the purposes of the interlocutory injunction application.

Justice Gyles granted the injunction sought by Sanofi despite:

  • finding that there was a "substantial issue" to be tried as to the validity of the asserted claims of the Clopidogrel Patent
  • GenRx offering to secure a sum sufficient to cover any reasonably likely assessment of damages; and
  • GenRx offering other undertakings to ameliorate the effect of its commencing trade.

As infringement was conceded for the purpose of the interlocutory injunction application, the issue before the Court on the first factor was whether there was a serious question to be tried as to the validity of the asserted claims sufficient for the court to conclude that there was no serious question to be tried overall.

Referring to the decision of the then Federal Court Justice Gummow in Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 543, as did Justice Moore in the Merck case discussed below, Justice Gyles noted that the effect of that decision was to give greater weight in favour of the grant of an interlocutory injunction to the grant of a patent than might have been deduced from earlier precedent.

He also gave considerable weight to the "longstanding existence and exploitation of the patent in suit"; the patent having been granted 17 years before the commencement of the revocation proceedings.

Justice Gyles also held that GenRx's failure to bring revocation proceedings in a timely fashion weighed in favour of the grant of an interlocutory injunction. He held that it may have been reasonable for GenRx not to move to revoke the Clopidogrel Patent until after the expiry in July 2003 of an earlier patent that covered clopidogrel, but that there was no good reason for GenRx not to seek to revoke the Clopidogrel Patent from that date onwards. Justice Gyles held that the inability of GenRx to market its clopidogrel product until it had obtained registration of its product on the ARTG, which it did not apply for until 2006, was not a valid basis for delaying the commencement of revocation proceedings.

He also gave some weight to the fact that similar patents had survived validity challenges in the US and Canada.

Justice Gyles found that the balance of convenience also tipped in favour of the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

He also held that he was not satisfied that damages would be an adequate remedy, despite the undertakings offered in this regard by GenRx referred to above. He rejected as a basis for this holding the difficulty in assessing damages asserted by Sanofi, holding that it should not be too difficult to assess the effect on the incumbent of a new entrant who would have to keep clear records of what took place. However, Justice Gyles was much influenced by the effects of disturbing the status quo, particularly as it related to the operation of the PBS. He held that a new entrant in this field would have an effect which may be both unpredictable and irreversible. Justice Gyles further held that there was likely to be interference with the trade patterns of Sanofi with its customers, both wholesale and retail, much of which it had built up since 2003 as GenRx looked on, that may not be detectable or measurable in money terms.

Merck & Co. inc. v. GenRx Pty Ltd (2006) 70 IPR 286 (31 October 2006)

In the Merck case, the Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining GenRx from infringing Merck's patent that covered processes for preparing alendronic acid and its salts, as well as the compounds themselves prepared by the claimed processes, including 4-amino-1-hydroxybutylidene-1, 1-bisphosphonic acid monosodium salt trihydrate (AMT) (the "AMT Patent"), the active ingredient in Merck's Fosamax product. GenRx had obtained registration for its AMT products on the ARTG and inclusion of some of those products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ("PBS"). There was no dispute that GenRx's AMT product would infringe Merck's patent.

Justice Moore held that this case warranted the grant of an interlocutory injunction, despite holding that there was a serious question to be tried as to the validity of the AMT Patent.

He held that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction as GenRx had placed itself in its present position deliberately and knowingly - "with its eyes wide open." GenRx had been aware of the AMT Patent since at least 2004, prior to lodging an application to register its products on the ARTG, and yet had not at any stage commenced revocation proceedings. He thus gave little weight to GenRx' claims that it would suffer commercial and reputational loss if the interlocutory injunction were granted.

As to the adequacy of damages as a remedy for GenRx's infringement, Justice Moore held that Merck's losses would be financial losses for which damages could be awarded, but that it would be difficult to assess with any real precision what those losses were so as to be able to compensate Merck for its actual loss. He held that this would be the case because the clear picture of Merck's present significant market share (though already adversely affected by one generic in the market, Alendro) was likely to be quickly and substantially muddied by the entry of not only the generics to be imported by GenRx, but other generics which might be encouraged to follow GenRx's example. Justice Moore also held that changes may be made to the PBS in the near future and how they might impact on any loss suffered by Merck would be difficult to gauge.

Pharmacia Italia S.p.A. v Interpharma Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1675 (23 November 2005)

In the Pharmacia case, the Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Interpharma from infringing Pharmacia's patent covering injectable ready-to-use solutions containing an anti-tumour anthracycline glycoside, including doxorubicin hydrochloride and epirubicin hydrochloride.

Interpharma intended to import into Australia and thereafter sell and distribute ready-to-use solutions containing doxorubicin hydrochloride and epirubicin hydrochloride. Interpharma had procured the listing of its solutions on the PBS, effective from 1 August 2005. In order to do so, it had provided the PBAC written assurances that a stock of the imported solutions would be available for supply on the date of the PBS listing. However, as of 9 November 2005, it had not yet imported a supply of those solutions. Thus, as of that day, no supply of the solutions was available for sale in Australia, and the solutions had not yet been listed on the PBS.

In September 2005, Pharmacia sought an injunction (1) restraining Interpharma from importing or offering to import the solutions and (2) requiring Interpharma to procure the withdrawal of the PBS listing. Interpharma sought revocation of the patent. The Court granted Pharmacia an injunction restraining the importing or offering to import, but declined to grant an injunction requiring Interpharma to procure the withdrawal of the PBS listing.

Justice Sundberg held that there was a serious question to be tried on the issue of infringement, but that Interpharma had failed to establish that there was a serious question to be tried as to invalidity.

In a forerunner to the cases discussed above, Justice Sundberg, in ruling that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the grant of an interlocutory injunction, noted that Interpharma had entered its chosen market with "its eyes wide open" to the possible consequences, and could not avoid being enjoined simply because of those possible consequences.

Justice Sundberg also held that damages were not an adequate remedy as Interpharma did not establish that it had the capacity to pay any damages that may be awarded, and did not undertake to quarantine the profit it would make from importing and selling the infringing product. He doubted whether an indemnity given by a substantial foreign company provided any real comfort where the foreign company lacked a presence in Australia.


The three decisions discussed above indicate a greater willingness on the part of at least some judges of the Federal Court to grant an interlocutory injunction in pharmaceutical patent cases.

Those cases also indicate that an applicant in such cases should emphasise, where possible:

with respect to whether there is a serious question to be tried and with respect to balance of convenience:

  • that the basis of its application is a granted patent or patents, which was/were granted following a thorough examination of its/their validity by the Commissioner of Patents;
  • the strength of its infringement case (ie., that there is a serious question to be tried on this issue);
  • the weakness of the invalidity case (ie., that there is no serious question to be tried on this issue);
  • the length of time that the patent/patents-in-suit have been exploited by the patentee without a successful challenge to its/their validity;
  • the length of the delay between the time that the alleged infringer learned of the patent/patents-in-suit and the time it challenged its/their validity;
  • that the alleged infringer placed itself in its present position deliberately and knowingly - "with its eyes wide open" to the possible consequences of being enjoined;
  • that during the period between the time the alleged infringer learned of the patent/patents-in-suit and the time it brought a revocation action, the applicant had made a significant investment, in terms of time, money and resources, in establishing its market and trade patterns; and
  • that similar patents had survived validity challenges in foreign jurisdictions; and

with respect to irreparable harm, that damages are not an adequate remedy because:

  • the patentee will suffer non-financial loss, such as damage to reputation;
  • damages are not readily quantifiable for the following reasons:
  • a new entrant in the field of the patented invention would have an effect which would be both unpredictable and irreversible;
  • such an entrant would likely interfere with the trade patterns of the patentee with its customers, both wholesale and retail, emphasising, as indicated above, to the extent possible, the extent to which those trade patterns had been built up while the alleged infringer looked on;
  • the clear picture of the patentee's present market share is likely to be quickly and substantially muddied by the entry of not only the generic product to be imported by the alleged infringer, but other generic products from other suppliers which might be encouraged to follow the alleged infringer's example;
  • generic companies in Australia often market their products by offering a 'baker's dozen' of generic products with volume discounts, making quantification or relevant sales difficult;
  • the new entrant will trigger price reductions under the PBS that will not be reversed if that product is then withdrawn from the market following the final hearing; and
  • changes may be made to the PBS in the near future, if this is the case, which will further complicate the assessment of the loss that the alleged infringer will cause to the patentee;
  • the extent, if any, to which the alleged infringer does not have the capacity to pay any damages that may be awarded; and
  • if a foreign company, that it lacks a presence in Australia and an indemnity does not provide sufficient comfort.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.