Schering-Plough Animal Health Limited v Crompton Corporation

Schering-Plough Animal Health Limited sought to oppose a patent held by Crompton Corporation. The central issue was whether Crompton should be granted an extension of time to serve evidence in support of the opposition. The dispute was heard in Canberra on 30 September 2003, with both parties represented by their respective patent attorneys. The court had to decide whether the Commissioner of Patents should grant Crompton's request for an extension of time to serve evidence in support of the opposition.

The court considered several factors in its decision, including the explanation for the delay, the nature and significance of the evidence to be served, and the interests of both parties. The court found that Crompton had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the evidence to be served, which related to documents disclosing the product Dimilin, was highly significant. The interests of Crompton and Schering were largely offsetting, and the interests of the Patent Office were a minor consideration. Based on these factors, the court concluded that a case for an extension of time had been made out.

In its decision, the court allowed an extension of time until 13 November 2003 for Crompton to serve evidence in support of the opposition. The court noted that it expected Crompton to ensure that no further extensions of time were necessary. The court also decided not to award costs in the present case, as the critical information was only provided at the hearing.