Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Astellas Pharma Incorporated v Medpro Pharmaceutica (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/021642) [2024] ZACCP 1 (26 June 2024)
The court allowed Astellas to amend its mirabegron patent and stayed revocation proceedings, finding Cipla had not proved invalidity, delay, or prejudice.
Hahn & Hahn Inc v Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd (2010/03199) [2022] ZAGPPHC 952 (5 December 2022)
The High Court revoked Patent No. 2010/03199 for lack of novelty and inventive step, and refused amendment and certification of validity.
Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Outokumpu OYJ and Another (879/2018) [2019] ZASCA 115; 2020 (4) SA 441 (SCA); 2019 BIP 15 (SCA) (18 September 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Sandvik’s patent was obvious in light of the prior art and revoked it, upholding the appeal with costs.
EMS Industries (Pty) Ltd v Inteletrack CC (PATENT 2010/01326) [2015] ZAGPPHC 696 (7 September 2015)
Patent infringement dispute over a brake hose coupling turned on construction of “gasket” and inventiveness. The court found no infringement but upheld the patent as non-obvious.
Mantella Trading 310 (Pty) Limited v Kusile Mining (Pty) Limited (191/2014) [2015] ZASCA 10; 2015 BIP 1 (SCA) (12 March 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Mantella’s patent, finding Kusile’s underground mine barrier infringed and that the patent was not obvious or unclear.
Sasol Dyno Nobel (Proprietary) Limited v Master Blaster (Proprietary) Limited and Another (P2004/8313) [2015] ZACCP 1; 2014 BIP 114 (CP) (4 February 2015)
The court allowed amendment of a patent specification and claims, accepted the published advertisement, and stayed related revocation proceedings pending their outcome.
Multichoice South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Barron and Another (P2002/10346) [2014] ZACCP 4; 2014 BIP 121 (CP) (3 December 2014)
Patent revocation proceedings over a video-on-demand system. The court held the claims lacked novelty and inventive step, were insufficiently described, and were not fairly based.
Pharma Dynamics (Proprietary) Limited v Bayer Pharma AG and Another (468/2013) [2014] ZASCA 123; [2014] 4 All SA 302 (SCA); 2014 BIP 69 (SCA) (19 September 2014)
The SCA held that Ruby infringed Bayer’s patent for drospirenone/ethinylestradiol, and rejected Pharma Dynamics’ attacks based on obviousness and divisional validity.
Ciplaagrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975) [2014] ZAGPPHC 96 (11 March 2014)
The court revoked Patent No. 1998/10975, holding that claims 1 to 29 were anticipated by an earlier patent and therefore lacked novelty.
Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharo Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975) [2014] ZACCP 5; 2014 BIP 27 (CP) (11 March 2014)
The court revoked a South African patent after finding claims 1 to 29 were anticipated by an earlier patent and lacked novelty under the Patents Act.
Explore more
