Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 22 September 2015 29 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the Legal Research Officer,
High Court of Australia Library

[2015] HCAB 7 (22 September 2015)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries

1: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Apotex Pty Ltd; AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd; AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd	Patents
Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption	Statutes
Fuller-Lyons v State of New South Wales	Torts

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited v Northern Territory of Australia	Criminal Law
The Queen v Beckett	Criminal Law
The Queen v Pham	Criminal Law
Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru & Anor	Foreign Judgment
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH & Anor	Migration
Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (In Liq); Commissioner of Taxation v Muller & Anor as Liquidators of Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (In Liq)	Taxation

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
Wei v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors	Migration
Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection	Migration

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Paciocco & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited	Banking
CGU Insurance Limited v Blakely & Ors	Procedure
Coverdale v West Coast Council	Property
Stewart & Ors v Ackland	Torts

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the September 2015 sittings.

Constitutional Law

See also Statutes – Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption

Patents

AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Apotex Pty Ltd; AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd; AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd

S54/2015; S55/2015; S56/2015: [2015] HCA 30.

Judgment delivered: 2 September 2015.

Coram: French CJ, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ.

Catchwords:

Intellectual property – Patents – Patents Act 1990 (Cth) – Inventive step – Obviousness – Patent disclosing method of treatment for hypercholesterolemia – Administration of rosuvastatin and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts at low dosage range in claims – Whether invention obvious in light of common general knowledge together with two prior art documents considered separately where another prior art document disclosed alternative compound – Whether prior art documents were ascertained, understood and regarded by person skilled in relevant art as relevant – Whether permissible to use information from other documents to determine relevance of information in prior art document – Use of prior art not within common general knowledge.

Words and phrases – "ascertained, understood and regarded as relevant", "considered separately", "inventive step", "obviousness", "person skilled in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] HCAB 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the consolidated cases of AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Apotex Pty Ltd, AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Watson Pharma Pty Ltd, and AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Ascent Pharma Pty Ltd, the High Court of Australia dismissed appeals against decisions of the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether a patent disclosing a method of treatment for hypercholesterolemia by administering rosuvastatin and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts at low dosage ranges was obvious in light of common general knowledge together with two prior art documents, where another prior art document disclosed an alternative compound. The applicants argued that the prior art documents were not ascertained, understood, and regarded by a person skilled in the relevant art as relevant, and that it was not permissible to use information from other documents to determine the relevance of information in the prior art document. The respondents maintained that the invention was obvious and that the prior art was properly considered.

The High Court found that the prior art documents were properly ascertained, understood, and regarded by a person skilled in the relevant art as relevant. The court held that the use of information from other documents to determine the relevance of information in the prior art document was permissible. The court also found that the invention was obvious, and therefore the patents were invalid. The appeals were dismissed.

Orders