Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents involved a dispute concerning the validity and extension of a patent. Interpharma Pty Ltd challenged the patent granted to Lilly, specifically focusing on the extension of the patent term. The case arose after the opposition period had expired, and an extension was granted to the patent. Interpharma argued that the extension should not be valid due to certain procedural delays and the fact that Interpharma was incorporated nearly two years after the extension was granted.

The legal issues in the case centred on whether the patent extension could be challenged years after it was granted and whether Interpharma's delay in initiating proceedings affected its ability to successfully challenge the patent. The court had to consider the public interest in the administration of the patent system and the fairness of allowing such a long delay in challenging the patent extension. The court also needed to determine if Interpharma's delay in instituting the proceeding impacted its chances of success and if the proposed amendments to the application and statement of claim should be allowed.

The court found that once the opposition period had expired and an extension was granted, both the patentee and third parties were entitled to proceed based on the extension. It was noted that the applicant's delay in instituting the proceeding was significant, with the challenge being brought nearly eight years after the grant and six years after the applicant's incorporation. The court concluded that the delay undermined any reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceedings and that the public interest in the timely administration of the patent system favoured finality. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and the proposed amendments, and ordered Interpharma to pay costs to Lilly.