Chinese and Australian businesses looking for overseas opportunities to expand in the healthcare industry should be aware of important regulatory changes that are taking place in both China and Australia.
The recent decision of the Full Court in Idenix Pharmaceuticals v Gilead Sciences [2017] FCAFC 196 illustrates the power of the grounds of lack of utility and lack of sufficiency under section 40 of the Patents Act when challenging the validity of a patent.
On Wednesday the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision in which it upheld Justice Yates’ findings that Otsuka’s patent relating to aripiprazole, a drug used in the treatment of schizophrenia, is invalid for want of novelty and inventive step.
After years of negotiation and months of drafting, Australia signed the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (ChAFTA).
A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court reaffirms that not every prior use of an invention will be novelty defeating (see Damorgold Pty Ltd v JAI Products Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 31).
The Federal Court has today dismissed a case brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against Pfizer Australia for alleged misuse of market power and exclusive dealing.
The High Court has granted Cancer Voices’ application for special leave to appeal a Full Federal Court finding that Myriad’s patent relating to the BRCA1 gene is patentable.