Medrad Inc v Alpine Medical Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 949

The first applicant, Medrad Inc, is the registered owner of Australian Patent No 2005200597, entitled “Improvements relating to medical injector systems”.  This is the patent in suit.  The earliest priority date claimed for the patent is 10 July 2000.  The invention is concerned with aspects of a medical injector system for injecting fluid from a syringe into a patient.  An aspect of the invention disclosed in the patent relates to the syringes, including associated hubs and seals, used in the injector system. The second applicant, Imaxeon Pty Ltd, claims to be the exclusive licensee of the patent in suit. The applicants seek an interlocutory injunction in order to prevent the respondent, Alpine Medical Pty Ltd, from selling or offering for sale syringes, including hubs and seals sold with them, allegedly having features falling within claims of the patent.  In particular, the applicants seek an interlocutory injunction against the respondent in respect of the following syringes:

(a)          syringes entitled “High Pressure Syringe” with product numbers 100104, 100102 and 500102;

(b)       syringes the subject of ARTG entry no 158824 that:

(1)          include or incorporate any hub for syringes as claimed in claim 1 and/or claim 4 of the patent; or

(2)          include or incorporate  any hub and seal combination systems for syringes as claimed in claim 9 and/or claim 12 of the patent; and/or

(3)          are for use with a medical injector system as claimed in claims 51 and 52 of the patent;

(c)          syringes manufactured by Shenzhen Ant Medical Devices Co Ltd, Shenzhen City, People’s Republic of China that:

(1)          include or incorporate either any hubs for syringes as claimed in claim 1 and/or claim 4 of the patent; or

(2)          include or incorporate any hub and seal combination systems for syringes as claimed in claim 9 and/or claim 12 of the patent; and/or

(3)          are for use with a medical injector system as claimed in claims 51 and 52 of the patent.

  In an amended statement of claim filed 30 July 2009, the applicants allege that each of these products contain an essential integer of claims 1, 9, 51 and 52 of the patent in suit and that, by selling these products or offering them for sale, the respondent has infringed claims 1, 9, 51 and 52 of the patent... Read about this case:   This case has been cited in the following lawsuits:
  1. APT Technology Pty Ltd v Aladesaye, In the matter of APT Technology Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 966
  2. WORKPLACE ACCESS AND SAFETY PTY LTD -v- MACKIE [2014] WASC 62
  3. MINERALOGY PTY LTD -v- SINO IRON PTY LTD [No 2] [2013] WASC 375
  4. PERDAMAN CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS PTY LTD -v- THE GRIFFIN COAL MINING COMPANY PTY LTD [No 7] [2012] WASC 502; 8 BFRA 462
  5. Novartis AG v Hospira Pty Limited [2012] FCA 1055; 98 IPR 185
  6. EMECO INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD -v- O'SHEA [2012] WASC 282
  7. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD -v- JOYCE [2012] WASC 224
  8. Boyd v Wild Hibiscus Flower Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 74
  9. Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156; (2011) 217 FCR 238
  10. Instyle Contract Textiles Pty Limited v Good Environmental Choice Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 38


Back to cases