The High Court of Australia rules that methods of medical treatment are patentable

Search for a command to run...

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.
When you think of McDonald’s, you probably picture Big Macs and golden arches. But from a corporate structuring perspective, McDonald’s isn't primarily a fast-food company; it’s a masterclass in intel

Artificial Intelligence has transformed from a futuristic buzzword into a tangible business tool. One of the most cutting-edge applications we are seeing among our corporate clients is the creation of

The modern digital economy moves faster than traditional banking. For forward-thinking organisations, especially Co-operatives acting as hubs for digital services, community projects, or decentralised

When you sell physical goods, the product does the talking. A customer can hold a premium leather bag, test drive a car, or taste a craft beer. But what happens when what you sell is entirely invisibl

When most business owners think about their balance sheet, their minds jump to tangible assets: office buildings, inventory, manufacturing machinery, or vehicle fleets. There's a bias towards what you

On 4 December 2013, the Australian High Court ruled in a landmark decision that methods of medical treatment can be patented. In the case of Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd, most of the High Court judges agreed that such methods meet the criteria for patentability under the Patent Act 1990, challenging previous beliefs about the economic and ethical implications of patenting medical procedures.
The Court's decision pivots on the idea that there is no fundamental difference, either economically or ethically, between patenting a new medical product and a new method of using an existing product for therapeutic purposes. This interpretation expands the scope of what can be considered a patentable invention in the medical field, potentially stimulating innovation and investment in medical treatments.
However, the ruling wasn't unanimous. In a dissenting judgment, Justice Hayne argued that the product of a process must have commercial significance for it to meet the 'manner of manufacture' test. According to his view, while a medical treatment method might have these characteristics, the treated individual – the product of such a method – does not.
Despite this split in opinion, the Court upheld the validity of the patent in question. Interestingly, the patentee faced a setback as the Court allowed an appeal against a finding of infringement. This ruling marks a significant moment in Australian patent law, potentially opening doors for more patents in medical treatment methods, a move that could have far-reaching implications for the healthcare industry and beyond.