Section 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) applies to expert opinion evidence citing clinical studies published in peer-reviewed journals, so that the hearsay rule does not render inadmissible the factual basis of the expert's opinion where the expert relies on reported data of fellow scientists. Post-priority date evidence of unexpected therapeutic superiority of a patented compound is irrelevant to the issue of obviousness; only evidence of what was commonly known and expected at the priority date is admissible on that issue. A racemate-based therapeutic good 'contains' its individual enantiomers for the purposes of patent term extension under ss 70-71 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and protected information under s 25A of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 36 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 36 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.