Effexor Patent Valid & Infringed

Case: Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth [2010] FCA 1211

Judge: Jagot J

In this case, a patent for a sustained release formulation of Effexor was found valid and infringed.  While a number of different aspects were covered, I found the discussions concerning inventive step most useful. I have distilled some points and lessons.  The cross examinations of the witnesses are worth reading.

Inventive step notes:

  1. Detailed laboratory notebooks can be used to establish a finding of inventive step.
  2. Reference to a result can define a claim.  The question is what the skilled addressee would have understood at the priority date by the reference to the result.
  3. A finding that experiments performed are of a routine character that would be tried as a matter of course by the skilled addressee would support a holding of obviousness.
  4. A witness's use of hindsight undermines an allegation of inventive step.
  5. A witness's knowledge that an invention has been successful indicates the use of hindsight.
  6. A witness's reference to publications not available at the priority date indicates the use of hindsight.
  7. Knowledge of the existence of a patent dispute can cast doubt on the reliability of a witness's evidence.
  8. The problem and solution approach could be unfair to an inventor of a combination or a simple solution.
  9. Inventive step may be lacking if the available information at the priority date would support the existence of a motivation to prepare a formulation in question.

Lessons

  1. Not only R&D teams, but all inventors should keep a careful developmental record in a form that can be readily reproduced.
  2. Where possible, witnesses should not be made aware of the patent dispute or even of the existence of a patent.
  3. Witnesses must be made to understand the importance of preparing their material as at the priority date, otherwise stated.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Amending Granted Patents

Patent owners are often keen to start sending off threatening letters as soon as a patent is granted. But this is not a time to over-reach. Our litigation regime is bloated. First of all, a barrister is required because they, and not solicitors, have the right to represent litigants in the Federal Court. However, a barrister usually needs to be instructed by a solicitor. The solicitor will be responsible for briefing the barrister and preparing the necessary application papers. However, it is not often that a solicitor will have a grasp of patent law. This is the role of a patent attorney. So it's not hard to understand why litigation can be expensive. Just sending off a cease-and-desist letter may start an expensive and resource-draining process. It's not wise to allow a cease-and-desist letter to be ignored. Once the decision has been made to send off the cease-and-desist letter, the patent owner should be fully committed to filing an application at the Federal Court to b
READ MORE.......

For the Record

A patent is a publicly available document. That document has no shelf life. I can get copies of patents that were published 150 years ago. Why is this a big deal for patent attorneys? These documents are not novels or even journalistic pieces. They are legal documents. For the first 20 years or so of their lives, they are supposed to provide patentees with a monopoly in the claimed invention. This means that they can be pored over by interested parties, like other patent attorneys. It's a source of anxiety for those of us who take pride in our work. Or perhaps it's a case of fragile egos. The point is that our work can undergo intense scrutiny at least for 20 years. If that were not enough, our correspondence with patent examiners is also available to the public. This correspondence is often a record of legal arguments that we make in support of our clients' patent applications. The United States has an interesting legal doctrine called "Prosecution History Est
READ MORE.......

Invention copied? That's a good thing

"Imitation is the best form of flattery". Nowhere else is this phrase more relevant than in our field of patent practice. Clients are often worried about third parties copying their inventions. However, I would be more concerned if the invention was not being copied. Of course, that's provided the patent application is in place. Consider the investor. Copying is a clear indication that the invention has commercial value. It stands to reason that an investor would be more interested in a product that was being actively copied rather than a product that has alleged commercial value. After all, if a patent is granted and can be used to stop the copying, the resultant vacuum could be very valuable to the investor. The idea is not to think about patent enforcement before the patent is actually granted. Enforcement can be incredibly expensive and should always be the last option. Rather just continue with the patent application process and ensure that you get patents in place t
READ MORE.......