Danisco A/S v Novozymes A/S (No 2)

In the case of Danisco A/S v Novozymes A/S (No 2), the primary dispute revolves around the interpretation, validity, and infringement of certain patent claims held by Danisco A/S. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving various issues pertaining to the clarity, scope, and novelty of the patent claims as well as determining whether Novozymes A/S had infringed these claims.

The legal issues addressed by the court included the construction of specific terms within the patent claims, the necessity of clarity in patent claims, the criteria for novelty and inventive step, and the conditions under which infringement occurs. Notably, the court had to interpret phrases such as "an enzyme," "generated from," "functional ingredient," and "inactivating or denaturing the enzyme" in the context of the patent claims. The court also examined whether certain elements, such as water, could be considered constituents of the independent claim despite not being explicitly mentioned. Furthermore, the court considered whether the claims were sufficiently clear and whether the patent was valid under Australian law, specifically addressing the grounds of lack of manner of manufacture, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step.

The court’s reasoning centred on the principle that patent claims must be interpreted based on their language, while also considering the specification and prior art. The court found that a clear construction of the claims was possible and did not render them invalid. It concluded that the claims were sufficiently clear and did not suffer from lack of clarity, lack of manner of manufacture, lack of novelty, or lack of inventive step. The court also determined that Novozymes A/S had infringed the patent claims by supplying a product in a manner that fell within the scope of the patent, as defined by section 117 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The court found that the claims were valid and that Novozymes’ cross-claim should be dismissed.

The final orders of the court required the parties to submit draft orders for the court's approval, to notify the court of any confidentiality concerns, and to stand the matter over for further directions. The court's decision was pivotal in affirming the validity of the patent claims and establishing that Novozymes A/S had indeed infringed these claims.