Sandoz AG v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH

Sandoz AG and Sandoz Pty Ltd (together, the Applicants) brought proceedings against Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Bayer AG and Bayer HealthCare LLC (together, Bayer) for, inter alia, a declaration of non-infringement of Bayer’s Australian Patent AU2004305226 (the 226 Patent) and Australian Patent AU2007206613 (the 613 Patent). The Applicants also sought to amend the 613 Patent. Bayer filed a cross-claim for, inter alia, a declaration of infringement of the 226 Patent and the 613 Patent, an injunction to prevent the Applicants’ threatened infringement of the 613 Patent and an amendment to the 613 Patent. The Applicants challenged the validity of the 226 Patent and the 613 Patent on various grounds. The Applicants also challenged the clarity of certain terms in the 613 Patent. Bayer defended the proceedings. The Applicants sought to amend the 613 Patent to correct a typographical error. The Court was required to determine the validity of the 226 Patent and the 613 Patent, and whether the Applicants’ products infringed the 226 Patent and the 613 Patent. The Court was also required to determine whether the Applicants’ application to amend the 613 Patent should be granted. The Court held that both the 226 Patent and the 613 Patent were valid. The Court held that the Applicants’ products did not infringe the 226 Patent. The Court held that the Applicants’ products would infringe the 613 Patent if it was not amended. The Court held that the Applicants’ application to amend the 613 Patent should be granted. The Court held that Bayer was entitled to an injunction to prevent the Applicants’ threatened infringement of the 613 Patent. The Court dismissed the Applicants’ application and accepted Bayer’s cross-claim in part. The Court made orders to reflect these reasons.