The patent war over escitalopram in Australia is still going!
In June 2009, after the Full Court upheld Lindgren J’s decision, Lundbeck made a new application for an extension of term and also applied under s 223 for an extension of time to make that application – an extension of some 10 years or so.
In June 2011, the Commissioner granted Lundbeck’s application for an extension of time over oppositions by Alphapharm, Aspen and others. The AAT dismissed an appeal Aspen et al. and Aspen et al. have appealed from the AAT’s decision to the Full Court. That appeal is still pending.
Pending the outcome of the appeal, Yates J has now refused Aspen et al. a stay on the Commissioner’s decision to extend the term of the patent.
Accepting that it was not ordinarily desirable that there be parallel proceedings before both the Commissioner and the Court, Yates J considered it was not appropriate to exercise his discretion to stay the proceedings before the Commissioner in this case.
While a number of considerations were advanced by both sides, the central consideration was that Lundbeck could well lose the ability to sue for some infringements if it was successful in extending the term of its patent. The issue here is that under s 120(4) proceedings for infringement must be brought within 6 years of the infringing conduct. Aspen et al. were not able to point to any real prejudice outweighing that.
It may be of interest to note that the point in common between the 2 sets of proceedings is Aspen _et al._’s contention that the Commissioner has no power to grant the extension of term now under s 70(4) as she has already exercised the power (albeit invalidly) in granting the extension quashed by Lindgren J.
Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S  FCA 324
- The Commissioner must now decide whether an extension of term is in order and, if so, the extension of term will be advertised and Aspen _et al. have foreshadowed they intend opposing. ?
- While the costs and disruption of unnecessary opposition proceedings were invoked, Yates J considered at  that such costs should not be substantial and, at , that they could “exert a real measure of restraint over the costs they will incur in the anticipated oppositions.” ?
- See  –  of Yates J’s reasons. ?
- I thought apologies were due to Jackson Browne, the soaring soprano and David Linley, but it seems Maurice Williams should also be in the picture. ?