Merial, Inc. v Intervet International B.V. (No 3) [2017] FCA 21

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Merial, Inc. v Intervet International B.V. (No 3) [2017] FCA 21 File number: VID 399 of 2015

Judge: MOSHINSKY J

Date of judgment: 25 January 2017

Catchwords: PATENTS – appeal under s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – entitlement – where opponent contended that applicant for patent did not derive title to alleged invention from inventor – where invention described in patent application was a soft chew formulation for administering an anti-parasite pharmaceutical to certain animals – whether opponent clearly established lack of entitlement PATENTS – appeal under s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – inventive step – obviousness – where opponent contended that alleged invention lacked an inventive step – person skilled in the relevant art – the common general knowledge – information mentioned in s 7(3) of the Patents Act – whether applicant clearly established lack of inventive step

Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) Patents Act 1952 (Cth), s 100(1)(e) Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 7, 15, 18, 40, 59, 60(4) Patents Amendment Act 2001 (Cth)

Cases cited: Abraxis Bioscience, Inc v Navinta LLC, 625 F 3d 1359 (Fed Cir 2010) Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 212 CLR 411 Allegheny Steel & Brass Corp v Elting, 141 F 2d 148 (7th Cir 1944) AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2015) 323 ALR 605 Baltimore & Ohio R Co v United States, 261 US 592 (1923) Banks v Unisys Corp, 228 F 3d 1357 (Fed Cir 2000) Bd of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v Roche Molecular Systems, 563 US 776 (2011) Bldg Innovation Indus, LLC v Onken, 473 F Supp 2d 978 (D Ariz 2007) Commissioner of Patents v Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 CLR 232 Commissioner of Patents v Sherman (2008) 172 FCR 394 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 162 FCR 466 EI Du Pont de Nemours and Company v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd (2003) 128 FCR 392 Enzo Apa & Son, Inc v Gaepag AG, 134 F 3d 1090 (Fed Cir 1998) F Hoffman-La Roche AG v New England Biolabs Inc (2000) 99 FCR 56 Gilson v Commissioner, Docket No 3801-78, 1984 Tax Ct Memo LEXIS 228 (US TC Aug 21, 1984) Hercules, Inc v US, 516 US 417 (1996) Intervet International B.V. v Merial Inc [2016] FCA 1030 Kaiser v Millard Lumber, Inc, 25 Neb 943; 587 NW 2d 875 (1999) Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) (2007) 235 CLR 173 Mellon Bank, N.A. v Aetna Business Credit, 619 F 2d 1001 (3rd Cir 1980) Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd [1970] RPC 157 SiRF Tech, Inc v Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F 3d 1319 (Fed Cir 2010) Speedy Gantry Hire Pty Ltd v Preston Erection Pty Ltd (1998) 40 IPR 543 St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co v Indemnity Ins Co of N Am, 32 NJ 17; 158 A 2d 825 (1960) Stack v Davies Shephard Pty Ltd (2001) 108 FCR 422 Standard Parts Co v Peck, 264 US 52 (1924) Teets v Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp, 83 F 3d 403 (Fed Cir 1996) United States v Dubilier Condenser Corp, 289 US 178 (1933) University of British Columbia v Conor Medsystems, Inc (2006) 155 FCR 391 Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 262