Amending Your Patent Claims In Corresponding Foreign Applications Could Obligate You To Look At Your Granted Australian Claims

by FPA Patent Attorneys
Contact

“There is no practice ... that I’m aware of, nor have I ever received advice from my attorneys anywhere in the world[,] that once a particular amendment is made to a patent in any particular jurisdiction ... there is some benefit or gain to be had in reviewing the entire portfolio with that in mind and certainly, we have never done that”.

This statement would fairly summarise the view of many patentee’s counsel. But a recent Australian court decision1 however has confirmed that there may be a ‘benefit or gain’ to be had in reviewing your Australian patent portfolio in light of amendments filed in related foreign applications. This decision, while finding in favour of the patentee on this occasion, sent a clear message that where similarities in patentability requirements and law exist between Australia and another jurisdiction, and the validity of your patent claims in that jurisdiction is questioned, it is advisable to closely review your granted Australian claims.

This will become increasingly important as new law, which seeks to harmonise some of Australia’s patent laws with that of other jurisdictions, comes into effect in April this year.

Background

Australian patent 780330 (the ‘Patent’) relates to pharmaceutical compositions for use as oral contraceptives which are sold in Australia under the brand name ‘Yasmin’. It is the subject of an allegation of patent infringement by the patentee Bayer Pharma AG and the exclusive licensee Bayer Australia Limited (collectively ‘Bayer’) against Generic Health Pty Ltd, Lupin Australia Pty Ltd and Eremad Pty Ltd (the respondents). The respondents have counter-claimed that the patent is invalid on a number of grounds.

This decision relates to an application to amend a number of claims (referred to as the ‘dissolution test claims’) made by Bayer. Bayer sought to amend the claims of the Patent to ‘forestall any argument, particularly in the principal proceeding, that the dissolution test claims … are not fairly based on the matter described in the specification….There is no evidence to suggest that these amendments have been sought …to overcome any prior art or indeed, to address any other asserted, apparent or possible ground of invalidity…’2

Patent amendments made before the Court

Claim amendments must be allowable under s 102 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (the ‘Act’). In addition, amendments to a patent requested before a court are only granted subject to the court’s discretion (in accordance with s 105 of the Act). To this effect, the conduct of the patentee is taken into consideration in accordance with the well-established principles set out in Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited v Evans Medical Limited.3

The respondents did not object to the allowability of the amendments under s 102 of the Act. The only issue was whether the discretion to allow the amendments under s 105 of the Act should be exercised favourably to Bayer.

In this regard, the respondents relied mainly on the allegation that Bayer had been put on notice as early as March 2003, when the corresponding US application was undergoing prosecution, that their Australian claims may need amending.

Corresponding foreign applications

The Court decided that delay in seeking amendment of the claims was not in itself determinative, and looked to the histories of the related European and US cases, as well as the prosecution history of the Patent itself, to consider whether Bayer should have been prompted to seek amendment of the Patent.

With regard to the related US case, the Court concluded that the objection raised by the US examiner was fundamentally different to the fair basis point at question here.

With respect to Europe, the Court gave consideration at [210] ‘to what are undoubtedly two different legal requirements – one dealing with added subject-matter as applied in EPC jurisdictions, and the other dealing with internal fair basis as understood and applied under Australian law’. The Court concluded at [211] that the existence of the problem in the corresponding EP application was ‘essentially a European issue’ that did not require Bayer Pharma to consider whether ‘patents in jurisdictions operating under quite different legal requirements…might also require amendment’.

The Court concluded that, due to the different contexts in which the claims were amended in Europe and the US, the amendments made in those other jurisdictions were not necessarily determinative of what amendments Bayer should have made to the claims of the Patent.

Interestingly, the finding that discretion under s105 of the Act should be exercised in favour of granting the amendments in this case was in contrast to the decision of the court in CSL Ltd v Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (‘CSL’).4 This decision followed the same principles as the court in the CSL decision, but came to a different conclusion based on the facts. As we reported in December 2010 "Claim amendment refused as patentee knew of problem well before requesting amendment" the court on that occasion concluded that because examiners in multiple jurisdictions had expressed the view that claim 1 should not be granted in view of substantially the same prior art, the patentees were on notice that claim 1 in the Australian patent was ‘problematic’.

New law – different outcome?

In concluding that the legal requirements between Australian fair basis and European support are different, the Court in this case noted the upcoming change in the Australian law to substitute the phrase ‘fairly based on the matter described’ (the current requirement for internal fair basis) with a test of ‘supported by matter disclosed’. As outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 (Cth), the rationale for this change is to align the Australian requirement with overseas jurisdictions’ requirements (such as the UK). In light of this, it was suggested by the Court that, had the new law been applicable, the Court may have chosen not to exercise its discretion.

This is consistent with the CSL decision where it was considered that there was sufficient similarity in legal requirements for the issue in question to have put the patentees on notice.

 

1. Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1510.
2. Ibid [26].
3. [1989] 1 FSR 561 at 566-569.
4. (No 2) [2010] FCA 1251.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© FPA Patent Attorneys | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

FPA Patent Attorneys
Contact
more
less

FPA Patent Attorneys on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.