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)
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