Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v BASF Plant Science GmbH [2020] FCA 328 File number: VID 42 of 2019
Judge: BEACH J
Date of judgment: 12 March 2020
Catchwords: PATENTS – production of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids – transgenic organisms – genes from unicellular algae coding for enzymes – appeal from Commissioner of Patents – application to amend specification – construction of specification – meaning of "substrate specificity" – stipulation of preference for conversion of alpha linolenic acid compared to linoleic acid – added matter – intermediate generalisation – s 102(1) of Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – whether specification as amended would claim or disclose matter that extends beyond specification as filed – relevance of analogous foreign law tests – s 76(2) of Patents Act 1977 (UK) – art 123(2) of European Patent Convention – comparison with s 102(1) test pre- Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) – amendment impermissible – appeal allowed
Legislation: Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth) Sch 1 Patents Act 1949 (UK) s 31 Patents Act 1977 (UK) s 76 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 40, 102, 104 Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 10.2A
Cases cited: AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 226 FCR 324 Bonzel v Intervention Ltd (No 3) [1991] RPC 553 Buhler AG v FP Spomax SA [2008] FSR 27 Coopers Animal Health Australia Ltd v Western Stock Distributors Pty Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 382 Cytec Industries Inc v Nalco Company [2019] FCA 1800 European Central Bank v Document Security Systems Inc [2007] EWHC 600 (Pat) Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd (2010) 273 ALR 630 LG Philips LCD Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd [2007] RPC 21 Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 274 Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd v Cargill Inc (2018) 354 ALR 95 Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd v Cargill, Inc (No 2) (2019) 139 IPR 47 Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Ratiopharm GmbH [2009] RPC 18 Palmaz's European Patents (UK) [1999] RPC 47 Palmaz's European Patents (UK) [2000] RPC 631 Pilkin v Sony Australia Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 980 RGC Mineral Sands Pty Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (1998) 89 FCR 458 Nokia Corporation v IPCom GmbH & Co KG (No 3) [2013] RPC 5 Richardson-Vicks Inc's Patent [1995] RPC 568 Smith & Nephew PLC v Convatec Technologies Inc [2013] RPC 8 Southco Inc v Dzus Fastener Europe Ltd [1990] RPC 587 Vector Corporation v Glatt Air Techniques Ltd [2008] RPC 10
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