Mainly intellectual property (IP) issues Down Under

IP Australia consults on patenting genetic material post Myriad

Following the High Court’s ruling that Myriad’s claims for isolated DNA relating to BRCA1 were not patentable subject matter, IP Australia has released a “consultation” on how it proposes to treat patent applications claiming genetic material.

Myriad’s BRCA1 claims – take 2

A closer look at the High Court’s ruling in D’Arcy v Myriad

AstraZeneca goes down

The High Court has dismissed Astrazeneca’s appeal against the finding that its rosuvastatin patent was obvious.

Abilify interlocutory injunction continues pending appeal

Nicholas J stays dissolution of interlocutory injunction pending Otsuka’s appeal from invalidity of aripiprazole patent judgment. Commonwealth gets security for undertaking as to damages.

WIPO patent studies

WIPO has published 2 studies on inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure in patent laws.

Are innovation patents going?

ACIP now recommends abolition of the innovation patent system

Of flat nosed syringes or if at first you don’t succeed

Having had the interlocutory injunction he granted overturned on appeal, Rares J has now determined at the substantive trial that both of Glaxo’s syringe variants infringed Reckitt Benkiser’s “flat-nosed syringe” patent.

Commonwealth seeks $60 million on the undertaking as to damages

Sanofi sued Apotex (then known as GenRx) for infringement of its “clopidogrel patent”. It obtained interlocutory injunctions against Apotex against the sale of Apotex’ product and preventing Apotex from applying to list its product under the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme (PBS). As a condition of the grant of those interlocutory injunctions, Sanofi gave the “usual undertaking as to damages”: “(a)          submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to.. Read More

Rosuvastatin goes to the High Court

The High Court has allowed special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision in AstraZeneca v Apotex (“Rosuvastatin”).

What conduct makes novelty destroying information publicly available

The Full Court has clarified what the prior use must disclose for it to be novelty destroying under the Patents Act 1990