Noted science fiction author, Kim Stanley Robinson, imagines a future oral argument trying to patent something in light of recent (US) judicial attempts to clarify business method patenting. Imagine what fun he could have in an imaginary place far far away!
Lid dip: PatentlyO
In the meantime, IPwars is also heading far far way for the holidays. Thank you for reading.
Season greetings! Wishing you a happy, safe and prosperous New Year!
IP Australia has published its guidelines for examining whether a patent application claims a manner of manufacture under s 18(1)(a) and (1A)(a) in light of the High Court’s ruling in D’Arcy v Myriad.
According to the guidelines, Examiners will find it useful to ask:
- What is the substance of the claim (not merely its form)?
- Has the substance of the claim been “made” or changed by man, or is “artificial”?
- Does the invention have economic utility?
- Does the invention as claimed represent a new class of claim?
In deciding whether the claim is for an established class of invention or a new class of claim, it will not necessarily be relevant that patents have previously been granted for similar subject matter. Examiners are directed to take into account whether the Courts have previously considered the type of subject matter and whether it was rejected or not.
Claims to plants and micro-organisms are not to be considered to fall within a new class merely because they are claims for a plant or micro-organism. Apart from claims to nucleic acid molecules, the guidelines indicate that the Commissioner will consider as excluded subject matter:
• cDNA and synthetic nucleic acids
• Probes and primers
• Isolated interfering/inhibitory nucleic acids,
“where they merely replicate genetic information of a naturally occurring organism”. However, such claims may be patentable where the utility of the invention “lies in genetic information that has been ”made” (e.g. non-naturally occuring chimeric nucleic acid). Other types of biological inventions may also ve patentable where they do not merely replicate the genetic information of a natually occurring organism.
The guidelines should appear in the Manual of Practice and Procedure in January 2016.
IP Australia’s Myriad Guidelines Read More »
The Full Court (Dowsett, Kenny and Nicholas JJ) has upheld the Commonwealth’s power to sue for damages on the undertaking as to damages given by Sanofi and Wyeth when obtaining interlocutory injunctions against generic suppliers.
Sanofi sued Apotex (then called GenRX) for patent infringement when the latter sought to registration in the Therapeutic Goods Register of drug containing clopidogrel. Sanofi obtained an interlocutory injunction preventing the listing and sale of Apotex’ product, on terms of the “usual undertaking as to damages”. Thus, as a condition of obtaining the interlocutory relief, Sanofi undertook to the court:
(a) to submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation, to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct, to any person, whether or not a party, adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order or undertaking or any continuation (with or without variation) thereof; and
(b) to pay the compensation referred to in (a) to the person there referred to. (emphasis supplied)
After the trial judge found Sanofi’s patent valid and infringed, the Full Court on appeal held that the patent was invalid. Ultimately, the High Court refused special leave.[1]
The Commonwealth, which was not a party to either the Sanofi or Wyeth proceedings is now claiming compensation from Sanofi and Wyeth under the “undertaking as to damages”. In broad terms, it says it suffered losses because the price it paid under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was higher than it would have been if the generic parties had not been prevented from listing and selling their products by the interlocutory injunctions.
Sanofi and Wyeth argued that sections 26B, 26C, 26D of the Therapeutic Goods Act[2] precluded the Commonwealth from claiming under the usual undertaking as to damages. The Full Court held, however, that these provisions were ancillary or additional to the Court’s powers under the undertaking. They did not provide an exhaustive code which excluded the operation of the undertaking.
Dowsett J delivered a concurring judgment, suggesting at [20] that some restriction on the scope of the usual undertaking should have been sought and then questioning, if such a restriction had been sought, whether it would have been appropriate to grant the interlocutory injunction:
…. As the Commonwealth was not a party to the proceedings in which the undertakings were given, they were presumably not extracted at its request. I infer that the Court extracted the undertakings. It is not suggested that it lacked the power to do so in order to protect the interests of identified or unidentified third parties. In submitting that the Commonwealth may not recover other than pursuant to s 26C, the Sanofi and Wyeth parties effectively seek to resile from their undertakings. It may be simply too late for them to do so. Any limitations upon the undertakings ought to have been sought at the time at which they were given. The Court would then have had to consider whether such limited undertakings were sufficient to justify the grant of the interlocutory injunctions. The Commonwealth has not put its case in that way. However, in any event, I see no basis for limiting the Commonwealth’s right to seek to enforce the undertakings to the extent that it benefits under them.
If only the regime under sections 26B, 26C, 26D had been available, it looks like Sanofi’s and Wyeth’s exposure would have been limited to situations where they had given false or misleading certificates or did not have “reasonable prospects of success”.[3]
Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) [2015] FCAFC 172
Commonwealth can sue on the undertaking as to damages Read More »
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.
The Commissioner considers that the High Court’s ruling excludes from ‘manner of manufacture’ a claim “to an isolated nucleic acid that merely represents information coding for a polypeptide is not patent eligible.”
Accordingly, at this stage, IP Australia contemplates rejecting as not manners of manufactures claims to:
On the other hand, IP Australia considers the following could be patent subject matter:
The Commissioner is interested in receiving comments on her proposed practice by 30 October 2015.
IP Australia consults on patenting genetic material post Myriad Read More »
As previously noted, the High Court has unanimously ruled that Myriad’s 3 claims for isolated nucleic acids for the BRCA1 gene that codes for specific mutations and polymorphisms are invalid.[1]
Claim 1 was:
An isolated nucleic acid coding for a mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide, said nucleic acid containing in comparison to the BRCA1 polypeptide encoding sequence set forth in SEQ.ID No:1 one or more mutations or polymorphisms selected from the mutations set forth in Tables 12, 12A and 14 and the polymorphisms set forth in Tables 18 and 19.
Claims 2 and 3 were subsidiary claims for narrower formulations.
The sole issue in the case was whether claims 1 to 3 of Myriad’s patent were a “manner of manufacture” within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act – what the American’s refer to as subject matter or patentable subject matter. There was no challenge to the novelty or inventive step of the claim – the basis on which the corresponding patent was rejected in Europe.
There was also no challenge to claims 4 – 30, which Gordon J at [191] and [257] characterised as applications of the isolated gene sequences to various purposes such as a probe (claim 4), vectors (claims 5 – 7), methods of producing mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptides (claims 8 – 9), preparations and uses of polypeptides (claims 10 – 16) and methods of diagnosis (claims 17 – 30).
Previously, this question fell to be determined according to the principles declared in the “watershed” NRDC case. All 3 sets of reasons acknowledged the continued relevance of that decision, but appear to have qualified its teaching in potentially far-reaching ways.
The majority judgment was delivered by French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ.
At one level (one might hope the right level), their Honours’ judgment can be seen as focusing very specifically on the singular nature of Myriad’s claim. Thus, at [6], their Honours said:
Despite the formulation of the claimed invention as a class of product, its substance is information embodied in arrangements of nucleotides. The information is not “made” by human action. It is discerned. That feature of the claims raises a question about how they fit within the concept of a “manner of manufacture”. As appears from s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, an invention is something which involves “making”. It must reside in something. It may be a product. It may be a process. It may be an outcome which can be characterised, in the language of NRDC, as an “artificially created state of affairs”. Whatever it is, it must be something brought about by human action. ….
In their Honours’ conception, that was not the case here. The judgment continues at [6]:
The requirement, in each claim, that the sequence in the isolate bear specified mutations or polymorphisms raises the same problem in a particular way. Satisfaction of that integer depends upon a characteristic of the human being from whom the nucleic acid is isolated, a characteristic which is not shared by all human beings. It has nothing to do with the person who isolates the nucleic acid bearing the mutant sequence.
That is, nothing was “made”. Rather, the gene sequence with the relevant mutation(s) and/or polymorphism(s) was made in the individual from whom the genetic material had been extracted. “All” that Myriad did was whittle that genetic material down to identify whether or not the relevant mutation or polymorphism was present.[2]
Further, at [8]:
…. The size of the class of the products as defined is large. No upper limit was suggested in argument. The boundaries of the class are not defined by a limiting range of chemical formulae. There is a real risk that the chilling effect of the claims, on the use of any isolation process in relation to the BRCA1 gene, would lead to the creation of an exorbitant and unwarranted de facto monopoly on all methods of isolating nucleic acids containing the sequences coding for the BRCA1 protein. The infringement of the formal monopoly would not be ascertainable until the mutations and polymorphisms were detected. Such a result would be at odds with the purposes of the patent system.[3]
One might wonder how one works out whether or not the “monopoly” that would arise would be “exorbitant and unwarranted”. The size of the class claimed seems problematic, the “chilling effect” also might be thought something that flows from the grant of any patent. Why for example would that be any more of a problem than for the patents granted originally over compounds such as omeprazole or rosuvastating or any number of other drugs?
Moreover, the problem of infringement loomed very large. No-one could know in advance whether or not what they were doing would infringe. It would depend on whether a relevant mutation or polymorphism was present in the individual from whom the genetic material was extracted. One might say, of course, that one would not be at risk of infringing unless one was looking for the BRCA1 sequence. One might also say, at least up until today, that there was no bar to patenting omeprazole or rosuvastatin or any other chemical substance just because one had found a specific use for it such as treating disease A when, after the compound had been discovered, someone else might be precluded from investigating its use, surprisingly, to treat disease B.[4]
The problem seems particularly to come back to the nature of the claim as being tosomething generated in an individual naturally and independently of any action by the patentee.
French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ did not just declare that claims 1 to 3 were not patentable subject matter. Their Honours went on to explain the principles that should be applied in future.
First, their Honours accepted at [18] that the NRDC test was still the appropriate question:
“Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?”
As I tell my patents class students, that provides us with an awful lot of guidance! Their Honours continued:
That question is to be answered according to a common law methodology under the rubric of “manner of manufacture” as developed through the cases, but consistently with “a widening conception of the notion [which] has been a characteristic of the growth of patent law.” That widening conception is a necessary feature of the development of patent law in the 20th and 21st centuries as scientific discoveries inspire new technologies which may fall on or outside the boundaries of patentability set by the case law which predated their emergence.
So far, still so good; particularly the recognition of the need for the concept to continue developing.
The “common law methodology” is further explained in [5] – [7] and troubled French CJ in Apotex v Sanofi. The first point appears to be, if the claim falls within an existing recognised class of patentable subject matter, it is a manner of manufacture. If it is a new class, however, “policy factors informed by the purpose of the Act and considerations of coherence in the law” need to be considered. Moreover, there are limits in judicial law-making “inherent in common law methodology”:
Where an affirmative application of the concept is likely to result in the creation of important rights as against the world, to involve far-reaching questions of public policy and to affect the balance of important conflicting interests, the question must be asked whether that application is best left for legislative determination. The patentability of nucleotide sequences derived from human DNA is in that category. The inherent patentability of the invention as claimed would powerfully imply patentability of any claim for an isolated nucleic acid coding for a specified polypeptide.
Notwithstanding 50+ years of the Courts successfully applying the NRDC formula, this High Court is plainly very uncomfortable with that role.
For those 50+ years since NRDC, we had been thinking there were 2 (or 3) requirements for patentable subject matter:
French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ confirmed that requirements 1 and 2 are still necessary. As foreshadowed in paragraph [6], however, their Honours said that requirements 1 and 2, while necessary, are not in themselves sufficient.[6] Other factors must be taken into account. At [28], their Honours laid out four further considerations:
The new, additional factors 1, 2 and 4 above were described as the most important in the balancing process the inquiry envisaged by their Honours.[7]
Having regard to these considerations, French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ declared at [94]:
Although it may be said in a formal sense that the invention as claimed, referring to isolated nucleic acids, embodies a product created by human action, that is not sufficient to support its characterisation as a manner of manufacture. The substance of the invention as claimed and the considerations flowing from its substance militate against that characterisation. To include it within the scope of a “manner of manufacture” involves an extension of that concept, which is not appropriate for judicial determination. Further, to include this class of claim within that concept would not contribute to coherence in the law as was the case in Apotex. Nor do Australia’s international obligations and the differently framed patent laws of other jurisdictions, which were referred to earlier in these reasons, support the conclusion that this class of claim should fall within the concept.
In the decision of the Full Federal Court under appeal, it had been pointed out that isolated DNA was in fact man made – it didn’t occur in nature. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, however, considered that was to elevate form over substance. So at [90], their Honours accepted a submission from the appellant:
“Myriad’s claims are simply not expressed in terms of chemical composition, nor do they rely in any way on the chemical changes that result from the isolation of a particular section of DNA. Instead, the claims understandably focus on the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.”
That characterisation, so far as it emphasises the focus of the claims on genetic information, is applicable to the claims in this case and, contrary to the view of the Full Court, should be accepted.
At [93], their Honours then emphasised:
When proper regard is paid to their emphasis on genetic information, the subject matter of the claims lies at the boundaries of the concept of “manner of manufacture”. That it does lie at the boundaries is further evidenced by the odd consequence that if the claims are properly the subject of a patent, the patent could be infringed without the infringer being aware of that fact. That consequence coupled with the very large, indeed unquantified size of the relevant class of isolated nucleic acids, all of which bear the requisite information, raises the risk of a chilling effect upon legitimate innovative activity outside the formal boundaries of the monopoly and risks creating a penumbral de facto monopoly impeding the activities of legitimate improvers and inventors.
The characterisation of the claims as “information”[8] has some affinity for Gordon J’s approach, discussed briefly below, ruling that the claims were to a mere discovery rather than invention. As discussed above under A narrow approach, this seems to flow from the singular nature of the claims in suit with the consequent uncertainties, particularly for infringement.
How do you tell that Myriad’s claim involved an extension of the concept of manufacture?
It is true that no court in Australia had ruled on the patentability of isolated gene sequences until the Myriad litigation. However, the Patent Office has been granting patents for ‘man made’ microbes since 1976 and for isolated genetic material since 1995. The legislative history showed that Parliament rejected an attempt to exclude genetic material from patentable subject matter when passing the 1990 Act. A further attempt to exclude human genetic material was rejected in the Senate in 2011. Two inquiries by Government agencies in the 2000s had also endorsed the status quo and recommended against exclusion. Indeed, the Government of the day had publicly announced its acceptance of the ALRC’s recommendation not to exclude isolated genetic materials from patentability. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ said at [37]:[9]
This Court is not concerned in this appeal with “gene patenting” generally, but with whether the invention as claimed in Claims 1 to 3 falls within established applications of the concept of manner of manufacture. If it does not, then the question is one of inclusion not exclusion. The legislative history cannot be read as impliedly mandating the patentability of claims for inventions relating to isolated nucleic acids coding for particular polypeptides. The legislative history does not assist the Court in answering the question posed in this appeal.
[Apotex][apotex] had (more or less) upheld the status of methods of medical treatment as patentable subject matter. That contributed to coherence because there was no rational basis to distinguish between patenting medical products and patenting methods of treatment.
Here, arguable, the nature of the claim as already discussed means it is impossible to assess the risks of infringement in advance. That presumably does not promote coherence. Their Honours also focused on the broad range of what was claimed and the potential impacts on future researchers. As already discussed, it may be difficult to distinguish those aspects from claims to other chemical compounds.
Given the length of this post already, I shall only comment briefly on the remaining judgments.
Like French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, Gageler and Nettle JJ considered at [125] that “an artificial state of affairs” and “economic utility” were necessary requirements for patentable subject matter, but not sufficient.
Also like French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, Gageler and Nettle JJ stated at [144] that the question of patentable subject matter must be looked at as a matter of substance rather than form.
Invoking Microcell and Philips v Mirabella, their Honours considered at [133] that patentable subject matter involved a threshold inquiry of “inventiveness”.
Products of nature therefore did not qualify as at [136] they lacked the necessary quality of inventiveness. Gageler and Nettle JJ considered that Myriad’s claims were properly characterised as merely claims to products of nature.
Earlier at [128], Gageler and Nettle JJ had said:
Regardless, however, of the amount of labour involved or the differences between the product and the raw natural material from which it is derived, it is necessary that the inventive concept be seen to make a contribution to the essential difference between the product and nature.
Then, at [134], their Honours said:
Here, the essence of claim 1 is the correlation between the incidence of cancer and the presence of the specified mutations and polymorphisms in the mutated BRCA1 gene. Such ingenuity as that entails consists in the idea of examining an isolated fragment of a patient’s naturally occurring DNA constituted of the BRCA1 gene for the presence or absence of the specified mutations and polymorphisms. The subject matter of the claim does not make any contribution to the inclusion of the specified mutations and polymorphisms in the mutated BRCA1 gene. Their presence or absence in or from it is the result of the isolated BRCA1 gene being part of the naturally occurring DNA from which the sequence is isolated. To adopt and adapt the reasoning in NV Philips’ Gloeilampenfabrieken Application, it is “the inevitable result of that which is inherent in the [DNA]”.[10]
Like the reasons of French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ, this passage emphasises that Myriad did not itself make, or cause to be made, the relevant material. Rather, it was generated in the human body independently of any action by Myriad.
Thus, Gageler and Nettle JJ said at [139]:
…. the BRCA1 gene is not patentable as such because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon which lacks the quality of inventiveness necessary to qualify as a manner of new manufacture.
Gordon J at [222] – [225] specifically rejected D’Arcy’s argument that “naturally occurring things, or products or phenomena or principles of nature are excluded as a proper subject matter of a patent.” These were too vague, malleable and imprecise to be useful tools.
Instead, her Honour focused on the role isolation of the nucleic acid played: it simply allowed identification of the presence, or absence, of naturally occurring mutations or polymorphisms. Gordon J then advanced five reasons why the claims did not qualify as patentable subject matter:
Points 1, 2 and 5 focus on the sheer number and variety of compounds or sequences which were embraced. So at [241] and [242], her Honour recorded that Myriad could not identify the boundaries of the claims:
…. it is not possible for Myriad to record all of the various chemical compounds (or products) that might be produced by isolating an individual’s nucleic acid. For example, as Myriad accepted during argument, the claim is to an “extremely wide number” of chemical compounds where the compound formulae would vary according to the number of sequences extracted but the compound would nevertheless contain one or more of the specific mutations or polymorphisms.
As has been seen, changes in chemical composition are not limited to variation in the number of nucleotides. So, although the claimed product is a chemical compound, Myriad did not and cannot delineate the bounds of the class of compounds by reference to the chemical composition of the class of the claimed product. Instead, Myriad sought to delineate the boundaries of the claim by reference to what it described as the “characteristics identified within the claim” – the specific mutations and polymorphisms, represented by the code.
I am not sure why delineation by class of compound would be any more precise than the method chosen by Myriad – if you know, please leave a comment.
Under point 5, her Honour also pointed out the concern that no-one could know in advance whether they infringed or not and, if the role of the claim, is to identify the boundaries of the monopoly, that does rather cause a problem.
Under point 4, Gordon J referred to the nature of invention as discussed in the Hickton Patent Syndicate case:
In my opinion, invention may lie in the idea, and it may lie in the way in which it is carried out, and it may lie in the combination of the two; but if there is invention in the idea plus the way of carrying it out, then it is good subject-matter for Letters Patent. (Gordon J’s emphasis)
Her Honour considered that claims 1 to 3 failed to qualify because they did not carry out Myriad’s discovery that certain mutations or polymorphisms indicated increased risk of breast cancer. Gordon J said:
[254] Here, having located the BRCA1 gene and identified its nucleic acid sequence, Myriad’s idea, concept or principle is that specific mutations or polymorphisms in that sequence suggest a predisposition to breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
[255] How then is that idea carried out in claim 1? It is not. It is not and could not be carried out – as claim 1 suggests – by creating a product comprising isolated nucleic acid from a patient which contains the identified characteristic in any one of its many forms. As has been seen, Myriad does not claim the methods by which it isolates the nucleic acid or the methods by which it identifies the sequence of the patient’s nucleic acid. Myriad does not claim the characteristic. Claim 1 is not a claim to the idea, concept or principle.
Gordon J contrasted these claims to claim 4 which used the discovery to create a probe to test for the presence or absence of mutations. That was an invention. So analysed, claims 1 to 3 might be seen to be ‘mere’ discoveries’ rather than an application or now to offend against the enablement and sufficiency requirements.
First, it is not entirely clear from the decision whether cDNA is patentable subject matter as the US Supreme Court accepted. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ said at [73]:
Nor, as previously noted, are the claims subject to any process?based limitation involving the breaking up and physical stitching together of the sequences comprising the isolated nucleic acids which are the products the subject of the claims. The “conceptual” stitching together, which may be regarded as the ordered compilation of information defining the relevant sequence, falls outside the claims entirely. The claims encompass molecules comprising isolated nucleic acids containing coding nucleotides arranged in the same sequence as appears in the DNA from which they were derived, whether or not introns and other non-coding sections have been removed from the relevant stretch of that DNA.
That might leave room for debate that cDNA could qualify. Also, the exclusion of introns or other “non-conding regions” might ameliorate the “chilling effects”. Gageler and Nettle JJ, however, at [116] characterised the claims as claiming “the uninterrupted sequence of nucleotides without introns”, i.e., cDNA. According to Gordon J at [283], the parties agreed that, if the claims were not patentable subject matter, they would not be saved where they extended to cDNA.
Dr Patentology has called Philips the second worst ever patent judgment by the High Court. No argument from me. Turns out, we’re both wrong. At least 6 judges of the current High Court consider it good law[11] and appear to use it as their touchstone of patent principles.
I would say we need legislative reform but, as the Angel of Lake said, “Before you choose your wish son You better think first ….”
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35
Myriad’s BRCA1 claims – take 2 Read More »
The High Court has unanimously dismissed AstaZeneca’s appeal from the finding that its low dose patent for rosuvastatin was invalid as obvious. The main issue was whether the Courts below had impermissibly allowed one or other prior publication to be “added” to common general knowledge under the then narrow version of section 7(3). This was unanimously rejected.
AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 30.
AstraZeneca goes down Read More »
Last month, Yates J found that Otsuka’s patent for aripiprazole was invalid.[1] As a consequence, his Honour ordered that the interlocutory injunction preventing Generic Health from listing its product on the PBS and selling it be dissolved. Otsuka has appealed and now Nicholas J has granted a stay to preserve the interlocutory injunction pending the appeal.
While not being prepared to characterise Otsuka’s prospects on the appeal as higher than arguable, Nicholas J considered the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the interlocutory injunction.
Otsuka relied principally on the fact that there would be an automatic reduction of 16% the price payable under the PBS for Abilify[2] once Generic Health’s product was listed. It contended that it would not be possible to recover that price drop if its appeal were successful.
Generic Health countered that it risked losing the benefits of first mover advantage if it were enjoined and other generic producers were not. Generic Health’s evidence was that pharmacists would usually only carry one generic brand of each drug and that was likely to be the first brand “in”. This would exacerbate the difficulties in calculating its losses. Nicholas J did not dismiss that argument, but Otsuka said it would be seeking interlocutory injunctions against any other generics who tried to enter the market pending the appeal. Nicholas J noted further that, if Otsuka failed in an injunction applications against a second or further generic, that would be a strong basis to terminate the stay.
The Commonwealth also sought a specific undertaking to pay damages from Otsuka as the price of the injunction. It argues it will suffer loss, in the form of the higher prices payable under the PBS, if Generic Health continues to be enjoined but the appeal ultimately fails.
Nicholas J noted that a case has been stated to the Full Court on whether the Commonwealth can indeed claim under the “usual undertaking as to damages”. Subject to the outcome of that case, his Honour considered the Commonwealth was sufficiently within the scope of the usual undertaking and so did not need a separate, specific undertaking.
Nicholas J increased the security for costs that Otsuka had to provide to Generic Health in the amount of an additional $8.7 million[3] and, in addition, required a security of $6 million separately to the Commonwealth. His Honour also noted that the Commonwealth could apply to extend that security if the appeal was not decied in the first half of 2016.[4]
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 848
Abilify interlocutory injunction continues pending appeal Read More »
In connection with the 22nd session of WIPO’s Standing Committee on Patent Law, the International Bureau has published 2 studies on patent law issues:
(1) a study on inventive step(pdf); and
(2) a study on sufficiency of disclosure(pdf).
Each document seeks to present in summary form factual information about how various Member States deal with these issues under their respective patent laws, identifying where possible common themes and approaches and differences.
WIPO patent studies Read More »
Last year, ACIP ducked the question of keeping or abolishing the controversial innovation patent system. Last week, ACIP issued an “updated” statement in which it recommended abolition of the innovation patent system.
What happened?
According to ACIP, in the intervening period, IP Australia’s Chief Economist took advantage of data that became available through the Government’s Intellectual Property Government Open Data (IPGOD) “to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of the innovation patent system”. That study disclosed:
The great majority of Australian SMEs and private inventors appear to gain little benefit from the system… Only 23 SMEs have become moderate users of the innovation patent system … The average SME or private inventor files once and never again (74%), does not receive any enforceable right (83%) and lets their patent expire early because they see its value at less than the $110-$220 cost of renewal (78%).
Further
While 94% of innovation patent applications are made by private inventors or SMEs and they incur 95% of the regulatory costs of the system, larger firms who are already well served by the standard patent system tend to reap a disproportionate share of the benefits.
Taking into account regulatory costs and costs to public welfare generally, ACIP considers that the costs of the innovation system outweigh the benefits and so recommends abolition.
ACIP Review of the Innovation Patent System: Final Report May 2015 (updated to include new statement) (pdf)
The Statement
At the time of writing, the link to the comprehensive analysis of the economic data does not appear to be working.
Dr Summerfield takes a different view.
Are innovation patents going? Read More »
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.
You will recall that Reckitt has patented a bottle and syringe combination to simplify “feeding” medicines to babies and toddlers in particular. Claim 1 in part provides:
A liquid dispensing apparatus comprising a bottle, a bottle neck liner and a flat-nosed syringe having a plunger and a barrel, the barrel terminating at its distal end in a generally flat face having a diameter corresponding to the diameter of the syringe barrel and being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the barrel ….
… the claim goes on at some length to elaborate in further detail the features of the various elements.
Glaxo had two variants of its competing product:
For present purposes, I found two points of interest: the finding that the second variant infringed and the failure of Glaxo’s entitlement attack.
After dealing with construction issues at some length, Rares J found the first version infringed claim 1, but Glaxo’s second version did not. This was because, at [126], the indented “tip” at the distal (bottom) end of the syringe meant the end was not substantially the same diameter as the barrel itself.
Notwithstanding this, Rares J found the second version did infringe claim 9, the omnibus claim:
- A liquid dispensing apparatus, substantially as described with reference to the drawings and/or examples.
Rares J considered that the second variant functioned the same as the preferred embodiment described in the specification and drawing. While the indented tip was a difference, claim 9 required only substantial compliance and there was no difference in substance between the second variant and the patent description. At [149], his Honour explained:
…. The alternate syringe has exactly the same function as that described in the patent and the drawings. The alternate syringe is a flat-nosed syringe that has a distal end that fits into the liner and achieves a good seal with it so that it can draw up liquid without leaking from the bottle or the syringe. The mere fact that there is a corresponding tip on both the barrel and the reciprocating plunger used in the alternate syringe in the second product complained of should not be allowed to disguise that that product has taken the substantial configuration resulting from the patentee’s invention and its character for the dispensing of liquids from bottles without mess using an apparatus with a flat-nosed syringe: Radiation 60 CLR at 52; Raleigh 65 RPC at 160. The alternate syringe, as incorporated into the second product complained of, is not a substantially new or different combination ….
Earlier, his Honour had pointed out that the bottle liner of Glaxo’s second variant was shaped to complement the configuration of the indented tip of the syringe to sealingly engage as required by the patent. Although liquid was drawn into the indented tip from the bottle, it was essentially “dead space” as the tip of the syringe’s plunger had a correspondingly indented end so that the barrel measured volumes in the same as as the patented description. Accordingly at [150]:
The alternate syringe takes the substance of the flat-nosed syringe described in the patent and drawings as stated in claim 9.
In coming up with the claimed apparatus, Reckitt[1] had engaged a contractor. Glaxo argued that it was the contractor’s operative, a Mr Pearce, who was actually the inventor. Even though Reckitt’s posited inventors did not give evidence, Rares J rejected this attack without needing to resort to s 22A or s 138(4).
Glaxo’s challenge essentially ran into two problems. First, when the contractor discovered the early version of the patent application leading to the patent, it did challenge Reckitt about it. It’s concern, however, was to ensure its continued ability to use the “liner” element, only one integer of the claimed invention as a whole. Arising from this, Reckitt did make some modifications to its application and the contractor reached agreement with Reckitt preserving the contractor’s ability to use features of the liner for other projects freely.
Secondly, although Mr Pearce did give evidence, it was limited to claiming inventive contribution only to the liner element and it was not suggested to him that he, rather than Reckitt’s employees, came up with the idea for the features of the other elements comprising the invention.
Glaxo’s claim based on false suggestion similarly failed:
the documentary evidence suggests that the idea that conceived of a combination of a flat-nosed syringe co-operating with a bottle neck liner and a bottle in the form of the apparatus had nothing to do with Mr Pearce or HDB and was Ms Dallison’s inspiration. She also had envisaged the features of that combination, being the way in which the flat-nosed syringe would co-operate with the liner, and, with Mr Harrison, the need for the liner to be adapted suitably to pour, without mess, the liquid contents from the bottle ….
Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd v Glaxosmithkline Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2015] FCA 486
Of flat nosed syringes or if at first you don’t succeed Read More »
