PATENTS – innovation patent relating to hinges – infringement – validity – whether primary judge erred in the proper construction of the invention disclosed
PATENTS – validity – lack of clear and complete description – classical sufficiency – “relevant range” – s 40(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether primary judge erred in finding specifications did not enable skilled addressee to perform invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden
PATENTS – validity – lack of support – s 40(3) of the Act – comparison between invention specified in the claims and that described in the specification – technical contribution to the art
Related cases about Patents
-
Cipla Australia PL v Novo Nordisk A/S [2024] FCA 1414
PATENTS – patent for formulations of liraglutide – validity of extension of term of patent – where application for extension must concern a patent which discloses a ‘pharmaceutical substance per se’ under s 70 of the Patents Act 1990 – whether ‘pharmaceutical substance’ includes formulations of active ingredients and excipients – whether excipients required to…
-
Zoetis Services LLC v Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc [2024] FCAFC 145
PATENTS – patents for supernatant vaccine against diseases affecting pigs PATENTS – validity – best method – where antigen concentrations of vaccine disclosed as a range – whether antigen concentrations material to the advantages claimed of the invention – consideration of Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1689; 51 IPR 531 –…
-
Novartis AG v Pharmacor PL (No 3) [2024] FCA 1307
PATENTS – infringement – standard patent for a pharmaceutical composition containing certain active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) – claim construction – whether claim covers a pharmaceutical composition where the API is in the form of a complex in which the ions are associated by non-covalent bonds PATENTS – identity of the person skilled in the art…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2024/2024fcafc0095
For more information, see the original judgement.
