PATENTS – patent for controlled release aripiprazole formulations and methods for preparing and using such formulations – validity of extension of term of patent – validity of claims – whether pharmaceutical substance per se – whether pharmaceutical substance can include formulations – whether formulations can only include substances which have therapeutic use – whether pharmaceutical substances fall within scope of claims within meaning of s 70(2) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods take all of the features of the pharmaceutical substance as required by s 70(3) Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
PATENTS – whether claims limited by result – validity of claims – whether claims should be revoked for lack of clarity and lack of definition – s 40(2)(b) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – s 40(3) Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Related Federal Court case
Related Federal Court patent cases
-
UbiPark Pty Ltd v TMA Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 885
PATENTS – infringement – patent for system, method and computer program for an access control system for controlling access to a restricted area (eg, a car park) – where claim 1 comprised a system including a communication system and a computer program executable by a mobile communication device (such as a smartphone) wherein the device…
-
ToolGen Incorporated v Fisher (No 2) [2023] FCA 794
PATENTS – appeal against decision of delegate of Commissioner of Patents upholding opposition to patent application (“PA”) for compositions and methods using the CRISPR/Cas9 system for genome editing in eukaryotic cells – identity of person skilled in the art (“PSA”) – whether PSA comprises a team including a microbiologist with expertise in CRISPR/Cas system in…
-
Calix Limited v Grenof Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 378
PATENTS – claim for method of producing hydroxide slurries – construction of claim – whether claim infringed – whether s 121A of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (“the Act”) applied to place onus on the respondents – whether Court satisfied that it was very likely that respondents’ product was made by the patented process – whether claim…
