South Africa Case Law

Merck Sharpe Dohme Group v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (20282/2014)

Merck Sharpe Dohme Group v Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd (20282/2014) [2015] ZASCA 175; 2016 (3) SA 22 (SCA); 2015 BIP 101 (SCA) (27 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20282/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Theron, Wallis, Petse, Willis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 92 patent did not anticipate the claims of the 98 patent. The prior art disclosed only Triacetin as a preferred hydrophobic carrier and did not provide an individualised description or enablement of the specific combinations of hydrophobic carriers claimed in the 98 patent. The skilled person, armed only with the 92 patent, would not be able to arrive at the claimed invention without significant ingenuity and experimentation. The 98 patent represented a substantial technical advance, providing prolonged duration of activity and other advantages not ta…

Source excerpt

• Patent Novelty
• Anticipation
• Enablement
• Selection Patents
• Patents Act 1978
• Revocation Of Patent

Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharo Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975)

Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharo Dohme Group and Another (1998/10975) [2014] ZACCP 5; 2014 BIP 27 (CP) (11 March 2014)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

1998/10975

Judge

Teffo

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.

• Patent Novelty
• Anticipation
• Inventive Step
• Interpretation Of Claims
• Expert Evidence
• Revocation Of Patent

McKelvey and Others v Deton Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Another (657/95)

McKelvey and Others v Deton Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Another (657/95) [1997] ZASCA 57; 1998 (1) SA 374 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 569 (A); (28 May 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

657/95

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Nienaber, Harms, Schutz, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 25(7) of the Patents Act adopts the whole contents approach, invalidating several Deton patent claims for lack of novelty.

• Patent Novelty
• Whole Contents Approach
• Prior Claim Approach
• Double Patenting
• Priority Date
• Patent Infringement