A clear mistake in a claim term cannot be corrected through claim construction

In GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Investments (Ireland) (No 2) Limited v Generic Partners Pty Limited [2018] FCAFC 71, the Full Federal Court has found that terms used in claims cannot be interpreted beyond their plain meaning.  Such a decision emphasises that great care is required when drafting claims that contain words or phrases that have a

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

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