Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case of Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd (No 2), the primary dispute centred on the validity and infringement of a patent related to a method and apparatus for treating wounds using negative pressure wound therapy. The court had to determine whether Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd (S&N) had infringed the patent held by Wake Forest University Health Sciences (WFUHS) and whether the patent was valid. The patent in question, titled "Method and Apparatus for Treating Tissue Damage," had 123 claims, with 14 combination claims in suit that related to either a method of treatment or an apparatus. These claims included integers such as a sufficiently rigid and porous screen means, migration of epithelial and subcutaneous tissue toward the wound, and other specific attributes.

The central legal issues involved the construction of the patent claims, the infringement of these claims by S&N's products, and the validity of the claims under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The court had to decide whether the claims were clear and sufficiently described, whether they were novel and inventive, and whether they were anticipated by prior art. The claims' validity also depended on whether they were fairly based on the matter described in the specification, whether the invention was a manner of manufacture, and whether the claims were clear and sufficient. The court had to determine if S&N's products directly or indirectly infringed the patent and whether S&N was liable as a joint tortfeasor.

The court found that the claims were invalid due to the essential integer of screen rigidity being fundamentally flawed, as it lacked clarity and specificity. This flaw rendered the claims invalid under sections 40(2) and (3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The court concluded that the skilled addressee would attribute no meaning to this integer, which was crucial for the validity of the claims. Consequently, the court ruled that the application should be dismissed, and the cross-claim should be allowed. The court invited submissions on the form of orders and costs.