Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 196 Appeal from: Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd v Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC [2016] FCA 169
File number: NSD 640 of 2016
Judges: NICHOLAS, BEACH AND BURLEY JJ
Date of judgment: 7 December 2017
Catchwords: PATENTS – patent for pharmaceutical compound and method to treat hepatitis C virus – appeal against decision finding certain claims to be invalid – notice of contention – sufficiency – whether patent describes the invention fully – whether patent enables the skilled addressee to produce something within each claim without new inventions or additions or prolonged study of matters presenting initial difficulty – external fair basis – whether claim fairly based on earlier 350 application – whether entitled to an earlier priority date based on that application – internal fair basis – whether claim fairly based on the disclosure in the patent to the extent that the 350 application was incorporated by reference – utility – whether certain claims invalid for inutility – novelty – whether claims fairly based on matter disclosed in priority documents and entitled to earlier priority date – appeal dismissed – grounds of contention not made out
Legislation: Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 40(2), 40(3) Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 3.12
Cases cited: Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) (2013) 100 IPR 285; [2013] FCA 162 Apotex Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 2) (2016) 122 IPR 17; [2016] FCA 1238 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 226 FCR 324 AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2015) 257 CLR 356 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 Coopers Animal Health Australia Ltd v Western Stock Distributors Pty Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 382 F Hoffman-La Roche & Co AG v Commissioner of Patents (1971) 123 CLR 529 Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd v Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC (2016) 117 IPR 252; [2016] FCA 169 ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v The Lubrizol Corporation Inc (2000) 106 FCR 214 Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Gilead Sciences, Inc [2014] EWHC 3916 (Pat) Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Gilead Sciences, Inc [2016] EWCA Civ 1089 Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 274 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) (2007) 235 CLR 173 Metricon Homes Pty Ltd v Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd (2008) 248 ALR 364; [2008] FCAFC 46 Multigate Medical Devices Pty Ltd v B Braun Melsungen AG (2016) 117 IPR 1; [2016] FCAFC 21 Novartis AG v Hospira Pty Ltd (2012) 98 IPR 185; [2012] FCA 1055 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (2011) 197 FCR 67 Pfizer Inc v Commissioner of Patents (2005) 141 FCR 413 Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 331 ALR 550; [2016] HCA 22 Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2011) 119 IPR 194; [2011] FCAFC 132
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate