Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd & Anor

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd and its related entities (the appellants) and Allergan Australia Pty Ltd and its related entities (the respondents). The core of the dispute concerned the validity and infringement of Australian Patent No 2009201111 (the '111 patent), which claimed a method for treating or preventing a condition by administering a specific composition. The appellants alleged that the respondents had infringed the '111 patent through the sale and promotion of their product, Restylane, which they contended fell within the scope of the patent claims.

The High Court was required to determine several key legal issues. Primarily, the Court had to assess whether the '111 patent was valid, specifically in relation to the inventive step requirement under the *Patents Act 1990* (Cth). This involved considering whether the invention, as claimed, would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art having regard to the prior art. Secondly, the Court had to determine whether the respondents' product, Restylane, infringed the claims of the '111 patent, assuming the patent was valid.

The Court's reasoning focused on the assessment of inventive step. It applied the established principles for determining obviousness, which require an objective assessment of whether the invention as claimed would have been obvious to the skilled person in light of the common general knowledge and the disclosures in the prior art. The Court analysed the prior art and the claims of the '111 patent, concluding that the invention lacked an inventive step because the claimed method would have been obvious to the skilled person. Consequently, the Court found the '111 patent to be invalid.

As a result of finding the patent invalid, the High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal. The Court ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.