Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 628

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 628 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – combination patent – pharmaceutical formulation – validity – patent granted under Patents Act 1952 (Cth) – effect of transitional provisions of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – obviousness – common general knowledge – relevant non-inventive worker in field – whether common general knowledge of skilled formulator includes material which formulator might find by conducting research available to and used by formulators – whether such material, though not being common general knowledge, would be found and used by skilled formulator during routine steps performed in attempting to formulate invention – whether combination of integers claimed obvious – novelty – relationship between novelty and obviousness – whether "paper anticipation" – invention – manner of manufacture – whether lack of inventiveness in combination apparent on face of specification – whether invention contrary to law or generally inconvenient – whether invention a method of treatment of human body – priority date – amendment – "alkaline core material" – whether claims of amended specification disclosed previously undisclosed matters – obtaining amendment by fraud, false suggestion or representation – whether ground of obtaining amendment by false suggestion or representation available under Patents Act 1952 (Cth) – whether fraud alleged – alleged inconsistent statements to Patents Office – whether inconsistent – whether fraud – alleged false representations as to fair basis, novelty, inventive step and utility in patent – whether available as separate ground of revocation – whether false representation in specification as to effect of prior art – whether false representation in specification arising out of omission of experimental material – fair basis – claims alleged to include certain chemical compounds which did not produce result claimed for invention – whether claim fairly based only if it excluded such compounds – sufficiency – relevance of allegation that claims not limited to formulations which achieve purpose claimed for invention – whether specification disclosed best method of performing invention – ambiguity – whether certain technical terms in specification ambiguous, reading specification as a whole – inutility – relevance of allegation that claims not limited to formulations which achieve purpose claimed for invention WORDS AND PHRASES – "common general knowledge" – "obvious" – "inventive step" – "novel" – "mechanical equivalents" – "invention" – "manner of manufacture" – "generally inconvenient" – "fraud" – "false suggestion" - "fairly based" – "describe the invention fully" – "clear and succinct" – " useful" Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 3, 7, 18(1), 40(2), 40(3), 114(1), 138(3)(b), 138(3)(e), 233, Sch 1 Patents Act 1952 (Cth) ss 40(2), 100(1)(c), 100(1)(d), 100(1)(e), 100(1)(g), 100(1)(h), 100(1)(k), 100(1)(m), 100(1)(n), 100(1)(o) Patent Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 3.14 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 239 applied Winner v Ammar Holdings Pty Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 205 cited Wellcome Foundation Ltd v V.R. Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 applied Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 applied WR Grace & Co v Asahi Kasei Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (1993) 25 IPR 481 applied Allsop Inc v Bintang Ltd (1989) 15 IPR 686 cited British Acoustic Films Ltd v Nettlefold Productions (1936) 53 RPC 221 cited Graham Hart (1971) Pty Ltd v S W Hart & Co Pty Ltd (1978) 141 CLR 305 cited Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 applied General Tire & Rubber Co v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457 applied Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co (1990) 91 ALR 513 referred to Prestige Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1990) 26 FCR 197 cited MJA Scientifics International Pty Ltd v SC Johnson & Son Pty Ltd (Federal Court of Australia, Sundberg J, 24 July 1998, unreported) referred to NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 655 cited Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 152 ALR 604 referred to Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232 referred to May v Higgins (1916) 21 CLR 119 distinguished Fallshaw Holdings Pty Ltd v Flexello Castors and Wheels Plc (1993) 26 IPR 565 cited Sami S Svendsen Inc v Independent Products Canada Ltd (1968) 119 CLR 156 cited National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 referred to Bristol‑Myers Squibb Company v FH Faulding & Co Ltd (1998) 41 IPR 467 cited Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1 cited Re Mond Nickel Co Ltd's Application [1956] RPC 189 referred to Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 applied Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236 distinguished CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260 cited Société des Usines Chimiques Rhone‑Poulenc v Commissioner of Patents (1958) 100 CLR 5 cited F. Hoffman‑La Roche & Co AG v Commissioner of Patents (1971) 123 CLR 529 cited Patent Gesellschaft AG v Saudi Livestock Transport and Trading Company (1997) 37 IPR 523 applied Rescare Ltd v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (1992) 111 ALR 205 applied Elconnex Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd (1992) 25 IPR 173 applied Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1988) 13 IPR 385 applied Coopers Animal Health Australia Ltd v Western Stock Distributors Ltd (1986) 6 IPR 545 distinguished Norton and Gregory Ltd v Jacobs (1937) 54 RPC 271 cited