High Court—Practice—Appeals—Appeal from Federal Court—Final judgment—Decision of Federal Court granting leave to appeal from Supreme Court—Dispute about standing of applicant for leave—Whether decision to grant leave final judgment—Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s. 33(4).
Decision
March 17. The following written reasons for judgment were published: - GIBBS C.J., STEPHEN AND MASON JJ. In this matter the Court allowed an objection to the competency of an appeal and refused an application for special leave to appeal. We now give our reasons for that decision. (at p151)
2. The appellant, Sanofi, a French corporation, is the successor in interest to another corporation which was the registered proprietor of letters patent which expired on 16 October 1979. By s. 90 of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) as amended, a petition for an extension of the term of a patent may be presented at least six months before the expiration of the term of the patent, or within such further period as the court allows. On 10 June 1980, which was of course after the expiration of the term of the patent, Sanafi applied by notice of motion to the Supreme Court of Victoria for an extension of time to present a petition for an extension of the term of the patent, and on the same day Murray J. ordered that the time within which a petition might be presented be extended to 29 August 1980. A petition was presented on that day, was duly advertised and was heard by Fullagar J. in June 1981. Since no caveat against the extension had been lodged, no person was made a party respondent to the petition under s. 92 of the Patents Act, although the Commissioner of Patents appeared and was heard. On 24 June 1981 Fullagar J. ordered that new letters patent be granted to Sanofi for a term of ten years from 16 October 1979, subject to certain conditions. Before the order had been passed and entered, the present respondent, Parke Davis Pty. Ltd. ("Parke Davis") applied on motion that the order on the petition be not entered pending a further hearing and determination of the petition, and that Parke Davis be made a party respondent to the petition. Fullagar J. dismissed that motion on 30 July 1981, and the order that he had made on the petition was thereupon passed and entered. The new letters patent were sealed on 7 August 1981 and on the same day the order made by the Supreme Court on 24 June 1981 was entered in the Register of Patents. (at p151)
3. On 14 August 1981 Parke Davis filed in the Federal Court an application for leave to appeal from the order made by Murray J. on 10 June 1980 and that made by Fullagar J. on 24 June 1981. On 2 December 1981 the Full Court…
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.
Continue reading Sanofi v Parke Davis Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sanofi v Parke Davis Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 9
Case
[1982] HCA 9
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sanofi Pty Ltd (Sanofi) and Parke Davis Pty Ltd (Parke Davis) were parties to litigation concerning the validity of a patent. The dispute ultimately came before the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the patent held by Sanofi was valid, specifically in relation to the inventiveness of the claimed subject matter. This involved an examination of whether the invention, as described in the patent, was obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art at the time of the patent application.
The High Court considered the principles of inventiveness and obviousness under Australian patent law. Their Honours analysed the prior art and the steps taken by the patentee to arrive at the claimed invention. The Court applied the established tests for assessing inventiveness, focusing on whether the invention represented a sufficient departure from what was already known to warrant the grant of a patent. The reasoning involved a careful consideration of the evidence presented regarding the state of knowledge in the field at the relevant time and the degree of ingenuity required to achieve the patented outcome.
The High Court found that the patent was invalid for want of inventiveness.