Novartis AG v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1475

Novartis AG v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1475

Because Arrow, as the opponent and effective moving party, had filed a submitting notice and no evidence in opposition, the Commissioner did not intend to appear or take part, and there was no evidence before the Court capable of supporting any actual or potential ground of opposition, there was no basis to uphold...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (cth) From a Decision of a Delegate of the Commissioner Upholding Opposition to a Patent Application / Appeal Allowed; Opposition Dismissed; Patent Application Allowed to Proceed to Grant
Outcome
Appeal allowed; delegate's decision set aside; opposition dismissed; Australian Patent Application No. 2013204752, as amended, to proceed to grant.
Legal Topics
['patent Opposition' 'inventive Step' 'appeal Under S 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (cth)' 'hearing De Novo' 'onus in Patent Opposition']
['intellectual Property' 'patents'] ['patent Opposition' 'inventive Step' 'appeal Under S 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (cth)' 'hearing De Novo' 'onus in Patent Opposition']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (cth) From a Decision of a Delegate of the Commissioner Upholding Opposition to a Patent Application / Appeal Allowed; Opposition Dismissed; Patent Application Allowed to Proceed to Grant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the delegate's decision upholding Arrow Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd's opposition to Australian Patent Application No. 2013204752 should be set aside." 'Whether there was evidence before the Court capable of supporting any actual or potential ground of opposition to the patent application.' 'Whether the patent application, as amended, should proceed to grant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Arrow, as the opponent and effective moving party, had filed a submitting notice and no evidence in opposition, the Commissioner did not intend to appear or take part, and there was no evidence before the Court capable of supporting any actual or potential ground of opposition, there was no basis to uphold the opposition; the appeal was therefore allowed and the application was permitted to proceed to grant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; delegate's decision set aside; opposition dismissed; Australian Patent Application No. 2013204752, as amended, to proceed to grant.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The decision of the delegate of the Commissioner made on 10 May 2019 concerning opposed Australian Patent Application No. 2013204752 ([2019] APO 22) be set aside.' "Arrow Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd's opposition to Australian Patent Application No. 2013204752, including as amended pursuant to...