Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth

• 1. Patents
  2. › Validity
  3. › Priority date
  4. › External fair basis
  5. › Whether method disclosed in priority document confined to particular encapsulated formulation
  6. › Whether claims of amended patent 'in substance disclosed' in priority document
  7. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 114
  8. › Patent Regulations 1991 (Cth), regs 3.12, 3.14(b)
• 1. Patents
  2. › Validity
  3. › Internal fair basis
  4. › Whether claims fairly based on matter described in specification
  5. › Whether claims encompassing hydrogel tablet technology lack fair basis where specification states such technology was fruitless and impossible to achieve
  6. › Whether claims unconfined to treatment of depression lack fair basis where specification refers only to depression
  7. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 40(3)
• 1. Patents
  2. › Validity
  3. › Sufficiency of description
  4. › Whether specification sufficiently describes invention
  5. › Relevance of statements that hydrogel technology was fruitless
  6. › Distinction between insufficiency and impermissible claim width
  7. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 40(2)(a)
• 1. Patents
  2. › Validity
  3. › False suggestion or misrepresentation
  4. › Whether statements in specification that hydrogel technology was impossible constituted false suggestion material to grant
  5. › Whether failure to nominate all inventors correctly constituted false suggestion
  6. › Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 138(3)(d), s 138(3)(e)

Quick Take