Arrow Pharmaceuticals Limited v Merck & Co., Inc. [2004] FCA 1282

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Arrow Pharmaceuticals Limited v Merck & Co., Inc. [2004] FCA 1282 PATENTS – application for revocation – attempt to 'evergreen' pharmaceutical patent – validity – whether new dosing regime for administering known substance for known purpose by known method without new pharmaceutical properties constitutes a manner of manufacture or an invention PATENTS – application for revocation – novelty – whether claimed invention anticipated by information in commercial magazine – magazine distributed internationally to existing and potential customers of commercial corporation – recipients of magazine free in law and equity to make use of information contained therein – no evidence magazine available on request or for inspection in any public library – evidence of publication of contents of magazine via the internet – whether information 'publicly available' so as to constitute 'prior art information' for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) PATENTS – application for revocation – novelty – dosage regime for administering alendronate – whether method anticipated by prior art information – application of reverse infringement test – prior art information suggested testing of claimed invention – whether suggestion that disclosed invention be tested prevented disclosure from constituting anticipation – whether suggestion of specific doses anticipated claimed invention PATENTS – application for revocation – false suggestion – patent specification contained statements alleged to misrepresent conclusions drawn from published article – no finding that any such misrepresentation intended to mislead – whether patent obtained by fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation WORDS AND PHRASES – 'made publicly available' Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 7, 18, 40, 80–87, 138 Adhesive Dry Mounting Co Ltd v Trapp & Co (1910) 27 RPC 341 referred to Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 171 considered Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1 followed Azuko Pty Ltd v Old Digger Pty Ltd (2001) 52 IPR 75 cited Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [2001] RPC 1 referred to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding & Co Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 524 followed in part; distinguished in part Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232 applied Fomento Industrial SA v Mentmore Manufacturing Co Ltd [1956] RPC 87 cited ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v Lubrizol Corporation Inc (2000) 106 FCR 214 cited Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 1 cited Merck & Co., Inc's Patents [2003] EWCA Civ 1545; [2004] FSR 16 referred to Merck & Co., Inc's Patents [2003] EWHC 5 (Pat); [2003] FSR 29 referred to Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 applied National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 considered NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 655 applied Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd (1977) 180 CLR 236 applied PLG Research Ltd v Ardon International Ltd [1993] FSR 197 cited Re Bristol-Myers Co's Application [1969] RPC 146 cited Sunbeam Corporation v Morphy-Richards (Australia) Pty Ltd (1961) 180 CLR 98 followed Telstra Corporation Limited v Australasian Performing Right Association Limited (1997) 191 CLR 140 cited Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (1980) 145 CLR 520 referred to D Falconer, W Aldous & D Young, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 12th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1971 ARROW PHARMACEUTICALS LTD (ACN 088 417 403) v MERCK & CO., INC. N 1211 OF 2002 GYLES J 6 OCTOBER 2004 SYDNEY