Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Novartis AG v Bausch & Lomb (Australia) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 835
PATENTS – claim for infringement and cross claim for revocation – application for deletion and validating amendments of patent – application opposed at the final hearing as contrary to the public interest to the extent that the amendments are validating amendments in that they seek to cure a lack of fair basis – after the final hearing the parties settled their dispute and requested consent orders dismissing the claim and cross-claim and granting all of the amendments sought – consideration of circumstances in which the Court will exercise its discretion to grant or refuse to grant an application for amendment of a patent – application granted in respect of some amendments and refused in respect of others
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether a non-party should be permitted to intervene on the amendment application on the ground that there is no longer a proper contradictor in respect of that application
Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 40, 102, 105 and 138 Federal Court Rules O 58 r 10 Datadot Technology Ltd v Alpha Microtech Pty Ltd (2003) 59 IPR 402 – cited Oil Basins Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 178 CLR 643 – cited Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Merck and Co Inc [2004] FCA 138 – cited Eli Lilly and Co v Pfizer Research and Development Co NV/SA (2003) 59 IPR 234 – considered New England Biolabs Inc v Commissioner of Patents (2001) 110 FCR 357 – cited Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd v RGC Mineral Sands Ltd (No 3) (1997) AIPC ¶91-366 (39,772) – considered RGC Mineral Sands Pty Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (1998) 89 FCR 458 – cited Fina Research SA v Halliburton Energy Services Inc (2003) 127 FCR 561 – cited ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp (1999) AIPC ¶91-521 (40,012) – considered ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corp (2000) 106 FCR 214 – applied C. Van der Lely N.V. v Bamfords Limited [1964] RPC 54 – considered Chiron Corporation v Organon Teknika Limited (No. 5) [1994] FSR 258 – cited Kirin-Amgen Inc's Patent [2002] RPC 43 – cited Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited v Evans Medical Limited [1989] 1 FSR 561 – applied Rescare Limited v Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Gummow J, 4 March 1993) – considered Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd (1999) 48 IPR 625 – considered Hsiung's Patent [1992] RPC 497 – cited Neurizon Pty Ltd v Lth Consulting and Marketing Services (No 2) (2003) AIPC ¶91-882 (35,633) – cited Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Airco Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1 – applied Société des Usines Chimiques Rhône-Poulenc v Commissioner of Patents (1958) 100 CLR 5 – applied F. Hoffman-La Roche & Co. Aktien-Gesellschaft v Commissioner of Patents (1971) 123 CLR 529 – cited Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 79 – cited Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 126 – cited CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260 – cited Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2003) 56 IPR 479 – cited Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co. Pty. Ltd. (1977) 180 CLR 236 – applied Atlantis Corporation Pty Ltd v Schindler (1997) 39 IPR 29 – cited Chevron Research Company's Patent [1970] RPC 580 – cited Bristol Myers Company v Manon Freres Limited [1973] RPC 836 – cited Matbro Limited v Michigan (Great Britain) Limited [1973] RPC 823 – cited Bentley Engineering Co. Ltd.'s Patent [1981] RPC 361 – cited Raleigh Cycle Co. Ld. v H. Miller & Co. Ld.. [1951] AC 278 – cited Minerals Separation Ltd v Potter's Sulphide Ore Treatment Ltd (1909) 8 CLR 779 – cited Mullard Radio Valve Co. Ltd. v British Belmont Radio Ltd. [1939] RPC 1 – cited Great Lakes Carbon Corporation's Patent [1971] RPC 117 – cited Texas Instruments Ltd v Hyundai Electronics UK Ltd (unreported, UK Patents Court, Pumfrey J, 30 July 1999) – cited Richardson-Vicks Inc.'s Patent [1995] RPC 568 – cited Minister of Agriculture's Patent [1990] RPC 61 – cited NOVARTIS AG, COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, AND CIBA VISION AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 057 946 540) v BAUSCH & LOMB (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 650 251) V 81 OF 2000 MERKEL J 24 AUGUST 2004 MELBOURNE
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