"Let's get started with some of the biggest differences between the Australian patent and regulatory landscape as compared to the United States...

The first is that in Australia, there is no Hatch-Waxman or ANDA filing process when a generic company wants to launch a drug. So, we don't have a system where patents are recorded in an Orange Book. And what that means is that in the initial stages of litigation, when a generic seeks registration and the originator company is trying to block that generic from launching, it can be quite a complex process. It can be a bit messy. The generic is trying to launch its product, and the originator is trying to seek a preliminary injunction to prevent the launch.

​

The second aspect would be the role of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the role that has on litigation and strategy for both generic and brand companies. The PBS is a scheme through which the Australian government subsidizes the cost of many drugs for Australian citizens. What that means, is that for many common drugs and many big drugs included on the PBS, the government pays for those medicines up until a certain point. The reason this is important for litigation is when a generic company wishes to list its generic product on the market, it will try to seek PBS listing. If a generic obtains PBS listing, then it will trigger an automatic 25% price reduction to the originator brand on the PBS. So, the PBS system plays an important role when it comes to the litigation strategy and trying to either launch or prevent the launch of a new generic medicine.

And then the third thing I'd say around the differences between Australia and United States is that while, litigation practice can be very similar, in Australia, there are some important differences..."