Astellas Pharma Incorporated v Medpro Pharmaceutica (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2023/021642) [2024] ZACCP 2 (6 August 2024)
The court found that the respondents did not meet the threshold set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented, the court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZACCP 2
- Parties
- Applicant: Astellas Pharma Incorporated; Respondent: Medpro Pharmaceutica (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Registrar of Patents
- Court
- Court of the Commissioner of Patents
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2023/021642
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Patent Amendment
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- L.A. Retief
- Legal Topics
- Patent Amendment, Leave to Appeal, Costs Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Astellas Pharma Incorporated
Applicant
Medpro Pharmaceutica (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
The Registrar of Patents
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Patent Amendment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents did not meet the threshold set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act. After considering the grounds for leave to appeal and the arguments presented, the court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded against the respondents.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The respondents are ordered to pay the costs, taxed on scale B.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Patent No. 2011/02406CDP
Case No. 2023/021642
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 06 AUGUST 2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
ASTELLAS PHARMA INCORPORATED Applicant and MEDPRO PHARMACEUTICA (PTY) LTD First Respondent CIPLA MEDPRO (PTY) LTD Second Respondent THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS Third Respondent This judgment is prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as such and is handed down electronically by circulation
to the parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
The date for handing down is deemed to be 06 August 2024.
SHORT REASONS AND JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
1. The First and Second Respondents [respondents] applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal alternatively the Full Bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, against the whole judgment and orders 1 to 3 and 5 dated 26 June 2024 in which this Court dismissed the Respondents’ opposition to the Applicant’s application for leave to amend a patent, permitting the patent to be so amended.
2. The Respondents seek leave in terms of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2023 [Superior Courts Act].
3. This Court has heard the argument, considered the grounds raised in the Respondents’ application for leave to appeal and reconsidered the reasoned judgment and does not find the Respondents’ argument compelling and accordingly finds that the threshold of section 17(1)(a) (i) and (ii) have not been met.
In the premises the following order:
1. Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, which costs are to be taxed on scale B.
L.A. RETIEF
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances:
For the 1st and 2nd Respondents: Adv A Franklin SC Cell: 079 299 3792 Email: Franklin@lawcircle.co.za Adv K D Iles Cell: 072 312 2559 Email: Kiles@counsel.co.za Instructed by attorneys: Von Seidels Inc Tel: 021 526 2800 Email: ivdmerwe@vonseidels.co For the Applicant: Adv G Marriott Cell: 082 824 0616 Email: marriott@counsel.co.za Instructed by attorneys: ADAMS & ADAMS Tel: (012) 432 6201 Email: Alexis.Apostolidis@adams.africa Russell.Bagnall@adams.africa Date of hearing: 24 July 2024 Date judgment delivered: 06 August 2024