Aktiebolaget Hassle and Another v Triomed (Pty) Ltd (63/2002) [2002] ZASCA 103; [2002] 4 All SA 138 (SCA); 2003 (1) SA 155 (SCA) (12 September 2002)

Aktiebolaget Hassle and Another v Triomed (Pty) Ltd (63/2002) [2002] ZASCA 103; [2002] 4 All SA 138 (SCA); 2003 (1) SA 155 (SCA) (12 September 2002)

The court held that the plural wording in claim 1 of Patent No. 87/2378 does not require the subcoating layer to consist of more than one excipient or compound. A purposive construction of the patent specification, considering the context and examples provided, indicates that the inventor did not intend to exclude preparations with a single compound subcoating. The functional requirements of the claim are satisfied by a subcoating layer consisting of one compound, provided it forms an effective water-soluble barrier between the alkaline core and the enteric coating. Therefore, the respondent's product Ulzec infringes claim 1 of the patent, and the application should not have been...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 103
Parties
Appellant: Aktiebolaget Hässle; Appellant: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Triomed (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2002
Case Number
63/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Commissioner of Patents; Confined to Issue of Infringement
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the Commissioner of Patents is set aside. Declaration of infringement granted. Application for temporary interdict remitted to the Commissioner of Patents.
Judges
Nugent, Hefer, Harms, Farlam, Navsa
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Purposive Construction, Pharmaceutical Patents, Claim Interpretation
Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Purposive Construction Pharmaceutical Patents Claim Interpretation

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aktiebolaget Hässle

Appellant

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Triomed (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Commissioner of Patents; Confined to Issue of Infringement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's product Ulzec infringes claim 1 of Patent No. 87/2378.
  2. 2 Whether the plural wording in claim 1 requires the subcoating layer to consist of more than one excipient or compound.
  3. 3 Whether a purposive construction of the patent specification allows for a subcoating layer of a single compound.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plural wording in claim 1 of Patent No. 87/2378 does not require the subcoating layer to consist of more than one excipient or compound. A purposive construction of the patent specification, considering the context and examples provided, indicates that the inventor did not intend to exclude preparations with a single compound subcoating. The functional requirements of the claim are satisfied by a subcoating layer consisting of one compound, provided it forms an effective water-soluble barrier between the alkaline core and the enteric coating. Therefore, the respondent's product Ulzec infringes claim 1 of the patent, and the application should not have been...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the Commissioner of Patents is set aside. Declaration of infringement granted. Application for temporary interdict remitted to the Commissioner of Patents.

Orders

  • The order of the Commissioner of Patents is set aside.
  • It is declared that the respondent, by importing, making, disposing of or offering to dispose of its Ulzec products infringes claim 1 of Patent No. 87/2378.