Amendments to a patent during court proceedings – how much transparency is required?

In Apotex Pty Ltd v ICOS Corporation [2017] FCA 466, the Federal Court has provided guidance regarding the level of disclosure required by a patentee in order for a court to exercise its discretion in allowing amendments to the specification during court proceedings.   Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) is the holding company of ICOS

Another small victory for Australian Government in its pursuit of damages for PBS “over-payments”

The Australian Government has had another small victory in the most recent interlocutory decision in the clopidogrel damages enquiry, which is likely to be the test case for its claims for reimbursement of PBS “overpayments” for the patentee’s listed during the period of an interlocutory injunction restraining generic entry (and consequent price drops) where the

Commonwealth’s damages claim for overpaying on patented products continues

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has rejected an argument that the Commonwealth is precluded by provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) from seeking damages pursuant to undertakings given by two patentees when obtaining interlocutory relief preventing the launch of generic pharmaceutical products. The Commonwealth’s claims, in one case including

Three strikes, you’re out: Rosuvastatin generics in the clear

The High Court of Australia handed down its decision yesterday in the appeal by AstraZeneca (AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2015) HCA 30), against last year’s ruling by the Full Court of the Federal Court,  affirming the Full Court’s decision that AstraZeneca’s low dose rosuvastatin patent was obvious.   The High Court has unanimously

Death of the ‘starting point’ approach: AstraZeneca v Apotex

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd (2014) 312 ALR 1 (‘AstraZeneca’) has clarified the tests for novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). In relation to inventive step, the Full Court in AstraZeneca marked its disapproval of the ‘starting