IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Connaught Laboratories [2012] APO 109
Patent Application: 2011213835
Title:Purification of polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccines by ultrafiltration with ammonium sulfate solutions
Patent Applicant: Connaught Laboratories
Delegate: E J Knock
Decision Date: 4 October 2012
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection – case management of divisional applications – no response by applicant – application refused
Representation: Patent applicant: Martin O’Brien, Spruson & Ferguson, Sydney
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2011213835
Title:Purification of polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccines by ultrafiltration with ammonium sulfate solutions
Patent Applicant: Connaught Laboratories
Date of Decision: 4 October 2012
DECISION
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Patent application 2011213835 was filed by Connaught Laboratories as a divisional of application 2008201363 on 23 August 2011. An examination report issued on 12 June 2012, raising three objections. In line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisionals, the report included the following objection:
“Objection(s) 1 and 2 of my report are based on the same grounds objected to in the examination of patent application AU 2008201363. Please note that if a response overcoming this objection is not filed within two months of the date of this report the Commissioner will consider whether to direct amendment of the application under section 107 or proceed to refuse the application under section 49(2) of the Act. If intending to proceed under either of these provisions the Commissioner will notify you in writing and indicate the time and place you may be heard on the matter. In deciding the matter the Commissioner will consider all possible grounds of objection to the application not only those identified below.
As no reply was received, the Commissioner issued a hearing notice in the following terms:
"The examination report of 12 June 2012 raised an objection(s) equivalent to that in the parent application. In line with our approach to case management of divisionals, you were given two months to respond to that report. As no response has been received, the matter will now be set for hearing.
I believe that it is possible to hear this matter on the basis of written submissions, so I allow you one (1) month from the date of this letter to file any submissions you wish. Your submissions should address the ground(s) of objection identified in the examination report. Once your submissions have been received, or alternatively if no submissions are received, the matter will be passed to a hearing officer to issue a written decision. Please note that it is possible for the Commissioner to refuse the application or direct amendment.
Alternatively, if you file amendments overcoming the objection(s) within this period, the Commissioner will not proceed with the hearing. However, if the amendments do not fully overcome the objection(s), you will be advised of this fact and the hearing may continue as above."
The applicant has not provided any submissions.
The objection
I have reviewed the examiner's report, and I agree that there are appropriately raised objections. The applicant has chosen not to defend the application. They have provided no submissions disputing the objections, and have not proposed any amendment to attempt to overcome the objections. In these circumstances there are no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections. The application should be refused.
E J Knock
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
- AGLC
- Connaught Laboratories [2012] APO 109
- Case
- [2012] APO 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Commissioner was whether the patent application should be refused due to the applicant's failure to respond to the examination report's objections. The Commissioner considered the case management approach to divisional applications, which requires a response to objections within two months. The applicant did not respond or propose amendments to overcome the objections, leading the Commissioner to conclude that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections.
The Commissioner examined the examiner's report and found the objections to be appropriately raised. The applicant chose not to defend the application and provided no submissions disputing the objections or proposing amendments to overcome them. The Commissioner concluded that in these circumstances, the application should be refused.
The final order of the Commissioner was to refuse the patent application 2011213835. The Commissioner noted that the applicant had one month to file submissions but did not do so. The Commissioner agreed with the examiner's objections and found that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections, leading to the refusal of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.