Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v AstraZeneca AB [2013] FCA 368 Citation: Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v AstraZeneca AB [2013] FCA 368
Parties: RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED and RANBAXY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v ASTRAZENECA AB and ASTRAZENECA PTY LIMITED; ASTRAZENECA AB and ASTRAZENECA PTY LIMITED; RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED and RANBAXY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File number: VID 1008 of 2011
Judge: MIDDLETON J
Date of judgment: 23 April 2013
Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Patents – Construction of claims – Infringement of claims – Applicable principles – Section 116 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – Amended patent – Whether reference to specification without amendment and other Patent Office documents permissible in construction – Skilled addressee and skilled team INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Patents – Validity – Novelty – Prior art and common general knowledge INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Patents – Validity – Inventive step – Common general knowledge and s 7(3) documents – Cripps question – Inventive journey of patentee – Secondary indicators – Commercial success – Conduct of competitors INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Patents – Manner of new manufacture
Legislation: Patents Act 1952 (Cth) Patents Act 1990 (Cth) Patents Amendment Act 2001 (Cth)
Cases cited: Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Limited (2002) 212 CLR 411 Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 593; [1999] FCA 628 Albany Molecular Research Inc v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2011) 90 IPR 457 Alcatel NV v Commissioner of Patents (1996) 68 FCR 8 Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S (2008) 76 IPR 618 Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) [2013] FCA 162 Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis (2008) 78 IPR 485; [2008] FCA 1194 Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis (2009) 82 IPR 416; [2009] FCAFC 134 Baygol Pty Ltd v Foamex Polystyrene Pty Ltd (2005) 64 IPR 437; [2005] FCA 145 Britax Childcare Pty Ltd v Infa-Secure Pty Ltd (2012) 96 IPR 1; [2012] FCA 467 British Acoustic Films Ltd v Nettlefold Productions (1936) 53 RPC 221 Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Limited (1959) 102 CLR 232 Danisco A/S v Novozymes A/S (No 2) (2011) 91 IPR 209; [2011] FCA 282 Dynamite Games Pty Ltd v Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 163 EI Du Pont de Nemours & Co v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd (2005) 66 IPR 462; [2005] FCA 892 Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 214 General Tire & Rubber Company v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd (1971) 1A IPR 121 H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2009) 177 FCR 151 ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v The Lubrizol Corporation Inc (2000) 106 FCR 214 Insta Image Pty Ltd v KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd (2008) 78 IPR 20; [2008] FCAFC 139 Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd (1973) 130 CLR 461 Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited (2001) 207 CLR 1 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] 1 All ER 667 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) (2007) 235 CLR 173 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co & 3M Australia Pty Ltd v Beiersdorf (Aust) Limited (1980) 144 CLR 253 Nobel's Explosives Company Ltd v Anderson (1894) 11 RPC 519 Novozymes A/S v Danisco A/S [2013] FCAFC 6 NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 655 Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd [1970] RPC 157 PAC Mining Pty Ltd v Esco Corp (2009) 80 IPR 1; [2009] FCAFC 18 Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly and Company (2005) 68 IPR 1; [2005] FCAFC 224 Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 Prestige Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1990) 26 FCR 197 Sachtler GmbH & Co KG v RE Miller Pty Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 605; [2005] FCA 788 Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2010) 88 IPR 459; [2010] FCA 1211 Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Ltd [1972] RPC 346 The Wellcome Foundation Limited v V R Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262 Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) 92 IPR 496; [2011] FCA 1002 Welch Perrin and Company v Worrel (1961) 106 CLR 588
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