High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FRENCH CJ, KIEFEL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ
Matter No S54/2015
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANOR APPELLANTS
AND
APOTEX PTY LTD RESPONDENT
Matter No S55/2015
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANOR APPELLANTS
AND
WATSON PHARMA PTY LTD RESPONDENT
Matter No S56/2015
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANOR APPELLANTS
AND
ASCENT PHARMA PTY LTD RESPONDENT
AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd AstraZeneca AB v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd AstraZeneca AB v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 30 2 September 2015 S54/2015, S55/2015 & S56/2015
ORDER
In each matter, appeal dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
A J L Bannon SC with C Dimitriadis SC and C J Burgess for the appellants in each matter (instructed by Ashurst Australia)
D K Catterns QC with N R Murray for the respondent in S54/2015 (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills)
A J Ryan SC with I P Horak for the respondents in S55/2015 and S56/2015 (instructed by Minter Ellison Lawyers)
J T Gleeson SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with F T Roughley for the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd AstraZeneca AB v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd AstraZeneca AB v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd
Intellectual property – Patents – Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – Inventive step – Obviousness – Patent disclosing method of treatment for hypercholesterolemia – Administration of rosuvastatin and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts at low dosage range in claims – Whether invention obvious in light of common general knowledge together with two prior art documents considered separately where another prior art document disclosed alternative compound – Whether prior art documents were ascertained, understood and regarded by person skilled in relevant art as relevant – Whether permissible to use information from other documents to determine relevance of information in prior art document – Use of prior art not within common general knowledge.
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