Legal Research
Cases
Merial, Inc. v Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc

Merial, Inc. v Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc

Case [2017] APO 56

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Merial, Inc. v Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc [2017] APO 56
Case: [2017] APO 56
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

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.

Actions

Citations

Merial, Inc. v Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc [2017] APO 56

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27
Citation 1

…ntion itself. … The nature of the invention will determine what is 'best' in the circumstances."[87] [87] Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27; 117 IPR 415 ( Servier ) at [129].…
Generic Health Pty Ltd v Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft [2014] FCAFC 73
Citation 2 (Para 15)

…in the characterisation of steps as routine and to be tried as a matter of course."[21] [21] Generic Health Pty Ltd v Bayer Pharma Aktiengsellschaft [2014] FCAFC 73 at [71].…
Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) [2013] FCA 162
Citation 3 (Para 2)

…In Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) [81] Jagot J pointed out that lack of utility requires evidence, not just speculation: [81] [2013] FCA 162; (2013) 100 IPR 285. "Ultimately, an asserted lack of utility must be established by appropriate evidence, not be mere speculation that the invention will not work o…
Expo-Net Danmark A/S v Buono-Net Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 710
Citation 4

…125. In Expo-Net Danmark A/S v Buono-Net Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) ( Expo-Net )[84] Bennett J stated: [84] [2011] FCA 710. "it must be established that there was a better method known to the applicant at the date of filing the patent than the one described in the specification. This is clearly a subjective questio…
Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59
Citation 5 (Para 13)

…ad ends and the retracing of steps is not the taking of routine steps to which the hypothetical formulator was taken as a matter of course."[19] [18] [2002] HCA 59; 212 CLR 411. [19] Hassle at [58].…
Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980
Citation 6 (Para 16)

…ther a patent is novel. He is the person who will judge whether a patent is obvious."[4] [4] Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 980; 49 IPR 225 at 241 [70].…
NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 15
Citation 7

…one before, or relates to mere workshop improvements of what has gone before." [77] NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 15; 183 CLR 655 at 663-665. 117. It is true that the components of the compositions are known actives and ingredients. The process of formulating the co…
Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12
Citation 8 (Para 12)

…ken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not." [17] [1981] HCA 12 at [45]; 148 CLR 262 at 286.…
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9
Citation 9 (Para 18)

…be treated as being used by an individual as a general body of knowledge."[22] [22] Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9 at [115]; (1980) 144 CLR 253 at 292.…
Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr Industries Ltd [1977] HCA 19
Citation 10 (Para 2)

…gement and generally one can properly ask oneself whether the alleged anticipation would, if the patent were valid, constitute an infringement". [14] [1977] HCA 19 at [20]; 137 CLR 228 at 235.…
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2013] FCA 368
Citation 11 (Para 19)

…the particular art; in other words, when it becomes part of their common stock of knowledge relating to the art. "[23] [23] Ranbaxy v AstraZeneca [2013] FCA 368; (2013) 101 IPR 11 at [217].…
Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Apotex Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 214
Citation 12 (Para 14)

…the prevailing common general knowledge and state of the relevant art at the priority date."[3] - [3] Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Apotex Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 214; 100 IPR 451 at 482 [139]. 1.2 The field of the invention…
Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 628
Citation 13 (Para 19)

…of Luxmoore J in British Acoustic Films (1936) 53 RPC 221 at 250, cited by Lehane J in Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 593; [1999] FCA 628 at 605 [39]: In my judgment it is not sufficient to prove common general knowledge that a particular disclosure is made in an article, or series of arti…
Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co [1990] FCA 40
Citation 14 (Para 3)

…contain clear and unmistakeable directions to do what the patentee claims to have invented".[16] [15] Nicaro Holdings Pty Ltd v Martin Engineering Co [1990] FCA 40; 91 ALR 513 at 517. [16] The General Tire & Rubber Company v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited [1972] RPC 457 at 486.…

AI Chat coming soon