Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd

Aktiebolaget Hässle was the plaintiff in a dispute against Alphapharm Pty Ltd, which was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The case revolved around a patent infringement claim, where Aktiebolaget Hässle alleged that Alphapharm had infringed upon their patent related to a medicament with a specific coating composition. The patent in question involved a medicament that was coated with a layer of a cellulose derivative containing free carboxyl groups, which was substantially insoluble in stomach fluids but soluble in intestinal fluids, and a layer of wax that maintained its integrity in the stomach but was lost in the intestines. The crux of the matter was whether Alphapharm's product breached this patent.

The court had to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether the patent was valid and, if so, whether Alphapharm's product infringed upon the claims of this patent. Secondly, if the patent was invalid, whether it was obvious to someone skilled in the art before the priority date of the patent. The court had to consider the evidence provided by expert witnesses, including Dr. Rowe, Dr. Story, and Dr. Marshall, who gave opinions on the formulation of the medicament and the feasibility of creating such a product before the priority date of the patent.

The court found that, even assuming the patent was valid, the invention claimed in the patent was obvious to someone skilled in the art before the priority date. The court reasoned that a person skilled in the art would have had access to the same information and resources as Dr. Rowe, the expert witness for Aktiebolaget Hässle. Given the existing knowledge and technology, the addition of a wax layer beneath or over the enteric coat would have been an obvious step to enhance the stability and effectiveness of the medicament in the stomach and intestines. Therefore, the court concluded that the patent was invalid due to obviousness. Consequently, Alphapharm was successful in its cross-claim for revocation of the patent, and Aktiebolaget Hässle's claim for infringement failed.

The final orders of the court required Alphapharm to file and serve short minutes of the orders it considered appropriate within fourteen days of the publication of the reasons for judgment. If Alphapharm and Aktiebolaget Hässle could not agree on the form of the orders, the matter could be set down for further argument.