Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S & Lundbeck Australia Pty Ltd
We acted for Alphapharm Pty Ltd in Federal Court of Australia pharmaceutical patent revocation and infringement proceedings. The patent purports to cover the anti-depressant medicine escitalopram (Lexapro) and is owned by a Dutch company, H Lundbeck A/S, and licensed to its Australian subsidiary, Lundbeck Australia Pty Ltd. In these proceedings, and in separate proceedings involving the Commissioner of Patents, Alphapharm sought amendment of the Patents Register to remove a five year extension of the term of the patent.
AMR v Alphapharm
We act for Alphapharm in proceedings brought by AMR, the owner of a patent in relation to fexofenadine, which is used in the treatment of allergies. AMR alleges that Alphapharm infringes the patent through sales of its Xergic product. Alphapharm has cross claimed alleging that the patent is invalid on numerous grounds. The matter involves complex synthetic chemistry and pharmacology. The proceedings have recently been brought together with proceedings between AMR and Arrow (another generic pharmaceutical company) and related entities.
Esco Inc and Bradken Resources v CQMS and Pac Mining - patent litigation
We act for Esco and Bradken who have patents relating to ground engaging tools for mining applications. These proceedings allege that CQMS and Pac Mining infringe those patents.
This proceeding is part of an overall strategy of Esco to enforce its patents against competitors in an industry where replacement parts for wear members is extensive.
Inamed Development Company v Morton Surgical Pty Limited
We acted for Inamed Development Company (now part of the Allergan Group) in Federal Court infringement and revocation proceedings concerning a patent for a gastric band device. The band is placed around the upper portion of the stomach in laparoscopic surgery. Morton Surgical is the Australian distributor of a band manufactured by a French company. The Australian proceedings were of strategic significance for our client in deterring copyists in Australia and elsewhere.
Goodman Fielder Limited
We acted for Quality Bakers Australia Pty Limited, a Goodman Fielder Group company, in Federal Court proceedings bought by George Weston Foods Limited. At issue was infringement and validity of an innovation patent owned by George Weston, in relation to Low GI (glycaemic index) white bread. The proceedings were significant because they involved the leading competitors in Australia’s bread industry.
Deltapine Australia Pty Ltd - Patent litigation relating to genetically modified cotton
We represented Deltapine Australia, the Australian subsidiary of a US company, in a patent infringement action concerning genetically modified cotton. The litigation involved highly technical material and specialised areas of law. These include patent law and the regulatory regimes governing genetically modified products (OGTR) and pesticides (APVMA). The case had multi-jurisdictional implications for the parties involved and international significance.
Conor Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc - patent litigation
We are acting for Boston Scientific Corporation who are the licensees of a suite of patents to a drug eluting stent which is in use as a coronary stent. Sales of these stent by our client represent billions of US dollars each year. Our client is in patent litigation with Conor in a number of countries. Conor has sought revocation of these patents which are owned by Angiotech.
Uniline v Sbriggs - patent litigation
We are acting for Sbriggs Pty Ltd which has been sued by Uniline for unjustified threats of patent and design infringement. Our client has countersued for patent and design infringement. The patent and design relates to spring clutches for the smooth operation of domestic and commercial blinds. This case is likely to bring forward the question of whether there can be design infringement by the assembly of components in the final product notwithstanding that those components in the unassembled form would not infringe. Also significant is that each of the parties are small companies and therefore legal costs are to be closely controlled.
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Inc. -v- SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA - Federal Court - patent litigation
This was an appeal by SKB Inc from Novartis' successful opposition to SKB's patent application for a multivalent ('multishot') vaccine. SKB's patent application has been litigated in many jurisdictions by Novartis. Mallesons was retained by FB Rice (leading Australian life science patent attorneys) to act for Novartis and contest SKB's appeal to the Federal Court. The matter ran for 14 months and Mallesons worked very closely with FB Rice and Novartis's UK patent attorneys. The distinguishing feature of the dispute was a contested hearing on whether the appeal should consider the original or amended claims of the patent application.
“Clients return to the practice here time and again for its ‘responsive and accommodating advisers’, who are just as at home whether dealing with contentions or non-contentious matters.”
Chambers Global Guide 2006-2007