Smithkline Beecham PLC v FH Faulding & Co Ltd

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicants (SB), who alleged infringement of their patents by the respondents, seek more particular discovery from the respondents (Faulding). The scope of the further discovery is set out in submissions of 16 June 2004, which incorporate reference to earlier correspondence between the parties concerning the question of further discovery. The dispute relates to three categories of documents as follows: (a) the General Marketing Application submitted by Faulding in relation to the registration with the Therapeutic Goods Administration of the paroxetine hydrochloride tablets distributed by Faulding in Australia under various brand names; (b) documents relating to the packaging and labelling of such tablets; (c) correspondence between Faulding and its supplier of such tablets relating to matters other than the manufacture of such tablets. 2 Subsequent to the request for determination of the dispute, the solicitors for SB requested that the matter be deferred pending questions of further joinder of parties. The deferral is opposed by Faulding. 3 On the material presently before me, I am not persuaded that there should be orders for more particular discovery in respect of the categories of documents identified. The matter is listed for directions generally on 6 August 2004. If required I would give leave to SB to file and serve any notice of motion for further discovery returnable on that day. The costs of the eCourt topic to date should be reserved pending the determination of any such motion. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.