Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)

In Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2), the dispute centered on the construction of a patent claim concerning a method for preventing or treating a skin disorder, specifically psoriasis, through the administration of a compound. The primary judge favoured the respondents' construction of the claim, which was that the method claimed involved the actual effect of the administration rather than the purpose or aim of the administration. The appellant, Apotex, disagreed and sought a different interpretation, arguing that the method claim depended on the objective determination of the treating physician's purpose or aim in administering the compound.

The court examined whether the claim should be construed to involve the purpose, object, or aim of the administration, or the actual effect of the administration. The primary judge held that the claim was directed to achieving a biological result, namely the prevention or treatment of psoriasis, rather than the purpose of the administration. The court noted that the claim did not mention the purpose of the administration and that the method was defined by the result achieved. The primary judge concluded that the claim was validly constructed to require that the compound be administered in an effective amount to prevent or treat psoriasis, based on the actual effect of the administration.

The court upheld the primary judge's construction of the claim, rejecting Apotex's argument that the claim should depend on the purpose or aim of the administration. The court found that the claim was for a method of preventing or treating psoriasis and that the method necessarily involved a deliberate exercise of diagnosis and prescription by a medical practitioner. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Apotex pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.