Promises, promises: Full Federal Court of Australia finds invention useful in ESCO Corporation v Ronneby Road

We can all be guilty of promising more than we can deliver – but for a patentee, that can be fatal for the validity of your patent.  Under Australian patent law, inventions must be ‘useful’ in order to be patentable, and one of the complex elements of this requirement is whether any promises made with read more...
Subjects: Patents

Partner:

High Court re-invents the test for patentable subject matter and finds the patent for the isolated breast cancer gene invalid

The High Court has handed down a significant decision finding that patent claims for isolated gene sequences, indicative of a predisposition to breast cancer, are not patentable subject matter. The decision can be found here (a one page summary has also been published by the High Court). The decision overturns the unanimous decision of the read more...
Subjects: Patents

Partner:

Update: Otsuka Successful in Stay Application: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 848

Further to our post of 7 July 2015, the proceedings brought by Otsuka and Bristol Myers Squibb (the “exclusive licensee” of Otsuka’s patents for aripiprazole) against Generic Health have taken another turn. Justice Nicholas delivered judgment on Friday 14 August in the interlocutory application sought by Otsuka and BMS. The orders and reasons were published read more...
Subjects: Patents

Partner:

Generic Health succeeds in invalidating patent for aripiprazole: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 634

Generic Health is perhaps a step closer to bringing its generic version of the antipsychotic drug aripiprazole to market in Australia after Justice Yates struck down one of Otsuka’s patents for the drug.  Although it’s unclear whether the path has been cleared for the launch of generic aripiprazole, Justice Yates’ decision – which found that read more...
Subjects: Patents

Partner:

Blindsided on prior use

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court reaffirms that not every prior use of an invention will be novelty defeating (see Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 31). Damorgold’s patent related to a spring assisted mechanism for controlling blinds. JAI briefly marketed (but did not sell) a RolaShades read more...
Subjects: Patents