Sanofi-Aventis Healthcare Pty Limited v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited

Sanofi-Aventis Healthcare Pty Limited brought an action against Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited, alleging infringement of their patent for a medicament comprising specific concentrations of certain anti-bacterial compounds with an anaesthetic effect. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was the interpretation of the patent specification concerning the use of specific compounds, namely 2,4-dichlorobenzyl alcohol (DCBA), amylmetacresol (AMC), cetyl pyridinium chloride (CPC), and hexetidine (HT), and whether Reckitt Benckiser's products infringed upon the patent claims. The Court needed to determine if the patent was valid and if the accused products indeed infringed upon the claims by using similar concentrations of the specified compounds.

The Court meticulously reviewed the specification and the prior art to understand the technical context and the ordinary meaning of the terms used. It was essential to place itself in the position of a person skilled in the relevant art and interpret the claims in light of the specification and the common general knowledge at the priority date. The Court examined the detailed embodiments provided in the specification, particularly the preferred concentrations of the compounds in a lozenge form. The analysis focused on whether the accused products fell within the scope of the patent claims, specifically considering the claimed concentrations and the form of delivery. The Court concluded that the patent was valid and that Reckitt Benckiser's products did indeed infringe upon Sanofi-Aventis's patent by using similar concentrations of the specified compounds in a lozenge form.

The Court ordered that Reckitt Benckiser was liable for infringement of the patent and directed that appropriate remedies, including damages and an account of profits, be determined in further proceedings. The Court also noted the similarity between the concentrations used in the accused products and those claimed in the patent, reinforcing the finding of infringement.