Suzy Madar

Further to our earlier “Breaking News” post, the High Court has handed down a much anticipated decision in Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis. The decision is important because it definitely determines that methods of medical treatment of human beings are patentable subject matter within the meaning of s18(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). Further, in circumstances where a pharmaceutical product has more than one use, one which infringes and one which does not infringe a valid patent, the High Court’s decision makes clear that supply of that product will not infringe the patent under s117 of the Patents Act where the infringing use is excluded from the approved indication for that product.

High Court hands down long awaited decision in Apotex v Sanofi, rejecting Apotex's appeal from a decision which upheld Sanofi's patent relating to a method of preventing or treating psoriasis by the administration of leflunomide.

The United States Supreme Court has found that naturally occurring DNA is a product of nature that is not rendered patentable by virtue of being isolated.

European member states have signed an agreement to pave the way for the introduction of an Unitary Patent Court.

The Federal Court has rejected a claim brought by Cancer Voices that isolated genetic material that is naturally occurring is not patentable subject matter.

On Friday, Justices Gummow, Hayne and Keiffel refused an application for Special Leave to appeal to the High Court a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court which found that Wyeth’s patent relating to a method of treatment using an extended release formulation of the anti-depressant venlafaxine was invalid for lack of fair basis on the specification as filed, and on the ground that that the claims were not fairly based on an earlier US priority document.