Author Archive for: ‘sugroom’
High Court decides important issues relating to patentability of methods of medical treatment, and contributory infringement of pharmaceutical patents
Further to our earlier “Breaking News” post, the High Court has handed down a much anticipated decision in Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis. The decision is important because it definitely determines that methods of medical treatment of human beings are patentable subject matter within the meaning of s18(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). Further, in circumstances where a pharmaceutical product has …
Breaking News – High Court hands down important decision in relation to infringement of pharmaceutical patents
A few hours ago, the High Court handed down its long awaited decision in Apotex v Sanofi. While the High Court confirmed that methods of medical treatment of the human body are patentable inventions within the meaning of s18(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), it found that Apotex did not infringe Sanofi’s patent relating to the use of leflunomide to …
In a decision handed down overnight, the United States Supreme Court has found that naturally occurring DNA is a product of nature that is not rendered patentable by virtue of being isolated. Myriad, the patentee of a claim to the isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, was found to have not created or altered the generic information encoded in the genes, …
European member states have signed an agreement to pave the way for the introduction of an Unitary Patent Court. The agreement was signed in Brussels by 24 EU members and will come into effect following ratification by 13 members (including France, Germany and the UK). The specialised court will hear first instance and appeal disputes relating to European patents. It …
Australian Court Decides Important Gene Patenting Question – Isolated Genetic Material Patentable Subject Matter
Earlier today, the Federal Court rejected a claim brought by Cancer Voices Australia that isolated genetic material (DNA or RNA) that is naturally occurring in nature is not patentable subject matter. The Court found that while there is “no doubt” that naturally occurring DNA and RNA is not patentable, isolated generic material may be the subject of a valid patent. …
High Court refuses application for special leave to appeal Full Court finding that extended release venlafaxine patent invalid
On Friday, Justices Gummow, Hayne and Keiffel refused an application for Special Leave to appeal to the High Court a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court which found that Wyeth’s patent relating to a method of treatment using an extended release formulation of the anti-depressant venlafaxine was invalid for lack of fair basis on the specification as filed, and on the ground that that the claims were not fairly based on an earlier US priority document.
King & Wood Mallesons acted for Alphapharm in opposing the application for special leave.
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on Friday upheld a claim by Alphapharm (together with Sigma and Generic Health) that claims 1 to 17 and 27 of Wyeth’s patent relating to venlafaxine, an anti-depressant used in the treatment of depression, are invalid.
Mallesons acted for Alphapharm in the proceeding.
A 2009 inquiry into the European pharmaceutical sector identified competition between ‘originator’ and ‘generic’ companies as an area where pharmaceutical markets “are not working as well as they should”. The inquiry was particularly concerned about originator pharmaceutical companies launching pre-emptive litigation against potential generic competitors, and subsequent settlement agreements in which would-be generic competitors would be paid to delay entry to the market.
European Court of Justice says no to patents requiring the destruction of a human embryo – an Australian perspective
Article 6(2)(c) of the European Biotech Directive excludes inventions which use human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes from patentability. Interpreting this exclusion, the European Court of Justice decided yesterday that an invention is not patentable if the claimed process requires the destruction of a ‘human embryo’.