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.
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.
Shezi Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Feltex Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2003/9331) [2014] ZAGPPHC 62 (19 February 2014)
The court ordered that a patent amendment application and a pending revocation application be heard together because the issues substantially overlapped.
BSAF Agro B.V. Arnhem (NL)-Wadenswil Branch v Villa Crop Protection (Pty) Ltd and Another (95/1468) [2012] ZACCP 2; 2012 BIP 51 (CP) (8 August 2012)
Costs-only patent judgment apportioning wasted trial costs 50/50, with defendants ordered to pay half after both sides contributed to postponement.
SmithKline Beecham plc and Another v Sandoz AG and Another (96/3472) [2010] ZACCP 3; 2010 BIP 25 (CP) (14 April 2010)
The court granted an application to amend patent claims for an amoxycillin/clavulanate paediatric formulation, rejecting opposition based on scope and validity.
Glaxo Group Limited v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited and Others (90/7136) [2007] ZACCP 1; 2007 BIP 59 (CP) (19 June 2007)
The court held that a patent amendment application under section 51(9) had to follow the Uniform Rules of Court, so Form P19 opposition was irregular.
Bateman Equipment Ltd and Another v Wren Group (Pty) Ltd (480/97) [1999] ZASCA 89; 2000 (1) SA 649 (SCA) (29 November 1999)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the requirement to furnish 'full reasons' for a patent amendment under section 51(1) of the Patents Act does not apply to amendments made during litigation under section 51(9). The court found that the reasons provided by the patentee were sufficient in the context of the proceedings and that the onus was on the objector to show that the lack of reasons justified refusal of the amendment. Regarding clarity, the court determined that the claims, when read as a whole and from the perspective of a skilled addressee, provided reasonable certainty and were not…
Source excerpt
Explore more
