Since 2005, the first inclusion of a generic medicine in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has resulted in an automatic 12.5% price reduction in the government subsidy of all medicines of that type, including the original listing. This factor has become increasingly significant in applications for interlocutory injunctions in pharmaceutical patent litigation, as illustrated by …
>> Read more
IP Australia and the USPTO have entered into an arrangement that will see IP Australia act as an international search and examination authority for certain international patent applications filed with the USPTO. The arrangement comes into effect on 1 November 2008 and will allow US applicants to choose IP Australia to undertake the initial search …
>> Read more
Section 105 of the Patents Act empowers the Court to direct amendment of a patent which is the subject of pending legal proceedings, including at the request of the patentee. The course of patent litigation may give rise to many good reasons for considering amendment to the patent in suit, however any decision to do …
>> Read more
The decision of the Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents in Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Wm. Wrigley Jr Company [2008] APO 20 provides an interesting counterpoint to the decision of Gyles J in Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis. The claims of the opposed application related to a method of coating comestibles (principally chewing gum), which included …
>> Read more
It seems that the Federal Court is not the only one to take issue with the current conduct of IP litigation in Australia. The report of the Review of the National Innovation System “Venturous Australia – building strength in innovation” includes a section headed “The costs of enforcing IP rights”. The report’s solution to the …
>> Read more
The first serious consideration of section 7(4) of the Patents Act 1990 relating to innovative step, the decision of Gyles J in Delnorth Pty Ltd v Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1225, gives a somewhat unexpected interpretation of the phrase “substantial contribution to the working of the invention”. Gyles J commences with a concise …
>> Read more
In Apotex Pty Ltd (formerly GenRx Pty Ltd) v Sanofi-Aventis [2008] FCA 1194, previously mentioned here, Gyles J concluded his consideration of novelty with the comment that: Anticipation is deadly but requires the accuracy of a sniper, not the firing of a 12 gauge shotgun. However his Honour’s findings on novelty, and in particular the …
>> Read more
Over 100 years ago Lord Esher, in Ungar v Sugg (1892) 9 RPC 113, opined: that a man had better have his patent infringed, or have anything happen to him in this world, short of losing all his family by influenza, than have a dispute about a patent. His patent is swallowed up, and he …
>> Read more
Apotex Pty Ltd (formerly GenRx Pty Ltd) v Sanofi-Aventis [2008] FCA 1194, handed down on Tuesday, determined a validity challenge to the Sanofi-Aventis patent covering the drug Clopidogrel, marketed as Plavix, the second highest selling pharmaceutical worldwide. While claims 1, 10 and 11 were found lacking novelty and claims 6 to 9 lacking inventive step, …
>> Read more
Where a NZ resident wishes to file an application for a patent abroad without first filing a corresponding patent application in New Zealand, the resident must obtain a foreign filing permit from the Commissioner under section 25(5) before making the foreign patent application. IPONZ will now accept requests for foreign filing permit by email. The …
>> Read more
