Aktiebolaget Hassle & Anor v Alphapharm

The applicants, Aktiebolaget Hassle and AstraZeneca AB, sought to restrain the respondent, Alphapharm Pty Ltd, from infringing their patent for a proton pump inhibitor, omeprazole. The dispute concerned the validity of the applicants' patent, which Alphapharm alleged was invalid on several grounds, including lack of novelty and obviousness. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the applicants' patent for omeprazole was valid and, if so, whether Alphapharm's proposed product infringed that patent. Specifically, the court had to consider the requirements for novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), particularly in relation to prior art disclosures and the concept of obviousness in the context of chemical compounds.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the patent claims and the assessment of prior art. It applied established principles of patent law, including the "mosaic anticipation" doctrine, which considers whether a person skilled in the art, with the benefit of the prior art, could have arrived at the claimed invention. The court found that the prior art did not disclose the specific compound claimed in the patent in a way that would render the invention obvious to a skilled person. Furthermore, the court examined the scope of the patent claims and concluded that Alphapharm's product fell within that scope.

The High Court found in favour of the applicants, upholding the validity of their patent and finding that Alphapharm's proposed product would infringe. Consequently, the court ordered that Alphapharm be restrained from infringing the patent.