Author - jane.owen

1
High Court to Consider Whether Isolated Genetic Material is Patentable in Australia
2
Australia’s Very Exclusive Patent Licensee Club
3
Australian Government Reveals Plan to Crackdown on Online Piracy – but not too Hard!
4
Australian Courts Confirm Status Quo for Patenting Gene Sequences
5
AstraZeneca Loses Latest Bout Over Rosuvastatin Patents
6
Breaking News – High Court of Australia Confirms That Methods of Medical Treatment are Patentable

High Court to Consider Whether Isolated Genetic Material is Patentable in Australia

On 13 February 2015, the High Court of Australia (High Court) heard and granted Yvonne D’Arcy’s application for special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court of Australia’s (Full Federal Court) decision in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115.

The unanimous decision of the five-judge bench of the Full Federal Court was that Myriad Genetics Inc’s patent claims directed to particular isolated BRCA1 genes were patentable subject matter in Australia.

Read More

Australia’s Very Exclusive Patent Licensee Club

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Apotex Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 2

The Full Federal Court of Australia (Court) has held that an ‘exclusive licensee’ within the definition of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act), must be granted the exclusive right to undertake ALL of the activities falling within the meaning of “exploit”. Accordingly, a grant of a licence to advertise, market, promote, sell and distribute, but not manufacture, does not create an “exclusive licensee”, as defined in the Patents Act. There can only be one exclusive licensee and the patentee cannot reserve any of the exclusive rights to exploit to itself. Read More

Australian Government Reveals Plan to Crackdown on Online Piracy – but not too Hard!

The Australian Government announced last week that it will implement measures proposed by Attorney General, George Brandis, and the Australian Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, to reduce “high levels of online copyright infringement”.

The announcement is timely – given the owners of the film Dallas Buyers Club issue of proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in November, against five internet service providers (ISPs) including iiNet, seeking orders to have the ISPs disclose the identities of alleged pirates. Read More

Australian Courts Confirm Status Quo for Patenting Gene Sequences

Today, a five-judge bench of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia unanimously decided that Myriad Genetics Inc’s (Myriad) patent covering the isolated BRCA1 gene (Patent) is valid.

 In Yvonne D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor (5 September 2014) the Full Federal Court rejected the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court, when it found in 2013 that certain claims of a closely related U.S. Patent of Myriad were invalid as the claim to isolated nucleic acid was a claim to a “product of nature” and not patentable subject matter.

For the pro-patent lobby and the biotech industry, this is good news for innovation in life sciences in Australia.

Read More

AstraZeneca Loses Latest Bout Over Rosuvastatin Patents

The Full Federal Court of Australia has upheld the first instance judgment of the Federal Court of Australia that the three patents protecting AstraZenica’s rosuvastatin products (marketed as Crestor) are invalid.

In judgment handed down on 12 August 2014, the court unanimously dismissed the appeals by AstraZeneca against generic pharmaceutical companies Apotex Pty Ltd, Watson Pharma Pty Ltd and Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd. Read More

Breaking News – High Court of Australia Confirms That Methods of Medical Treatment are Patentable

Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] HCA 50

The High Court of Australia yesterday issued its long awaited decision in a dispute between Apotex Pty Ltd (Apotex) and Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd and related entities (collectively, Sanofi) concerning Sanofi’s Australian patent entitled “Pharmaceutical for the treatment of skin disorders” (Patent). In summary:

  1. The majority (French CJ, Crennan, Keifel and Gageler JJ, Hayne J dissenting) held that assuming all other requirements for patentability are met, a method (or process) for medical treatment of the human body can be a “manner of manufacture” and therefore patentable for the purposes of section 18 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.