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 – where the person skilled in the art is understood as a “team” – discussion of the characteristics of the person skilled in the art
PATENTS – validity – lack of inventive step – availability of prior art information – whether person skilled in the art could be reasonably expected to have ascertained and regarded as relevant certain prior art publications
PATENTS – validity – lack of inventive step – discussion of the reformulated “Cripps question” – whether obviousness established on the evidence
PATENTS – extension of patent term – whether extension validly granted – whether rectification of the Register of Patents should be ordered
Related cases
-
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd (Liability) [2022] FCA 1585
PATENTS – Applicant patentee of three method patents relating to digital mobile radios (‘DMR’) using Time Division Multiple Access (‘TDMA’) to divide frequency channel – disputed constructions – fair basing – inventive step – identification of inventive step in claims – manner of manufacture – stare decisis – whether Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v…
-
H Lundbeck A/S v Sandoz Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 740
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – patents – application for stay of remitted proceeding – where High Court upheld primary judge’s declaration that the respondent infringed the first applicant’s patent – where High Court made an order declaring that the first applicant is entitled to damages and pre-judgment interest and an order remitting the proceeding for the…
-
Novartis AG v Pharmacor Pty Limited [2023] FCA 804
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – patents – where in the principal proceeding the respondent alleges that the patent in suit does not disclose the best method of performing the invention – discovery – where applicants oppose the respondent’s proposed discovery category
