AUSTRALIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ben Miller, Stephen Rohl, Katie Pryor and Jenny Wong, Maddocks
refers to Entresto as “sacubitril/valsartan (com- bined as a sodium salt hydrate complex)”. Justice Yates agreed with Pharmacor, finding that two pharmaceutical substances per se are disclosed and fall within the scope of claim 1, of which Entresto comprised neither. His Honour found that TSVH was a different compound with a unique set of physiochemical properties, and was not disclosed “or even envisaged” in the patent.
Novartis v Pharmacor is yet another decision highlighting the nuances of Australia’s PTE provi- sions. While the Australian regime has historical- ly been considered a relatively patentee-friendly one, more recent Federal Court judgments have tested its limits.
26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook