scholarly journals Quo Vadis Patent Litigation: Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation 2020 1 SA 327 (CC) - In Search of the Bigger Picture on Patent Validity

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Bonginkosi Shozi ◽  
Yousuf Vawda
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
High Court ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
Patent Validity ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

In October 2019 the Constitutional Court (CC) handed down judgment in the matter of Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharpe Dohme Corporation 2020 1 SA 327 (CC). This is its first judgment dealing with the validity of a patent and, as it concerns issues that go the heart of patent law, the judgment potentially has far-reaching implications for patent litigation in South Africa. At issue was the question of whether a court's finding of patent validity on one ground in a revocation hearing ought to have a bearing on a subsequent infringement hearing on the same patent, to the extent that the alleged infringer is barred from raising a different ground to attack the validity of a patent. In essence, did the attempt to do so offend the principle of res judicata? This was a direct appeal to the Constitutional Court after the High Court ruled that it did so offend, and the Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The Constitutional Court was deadlocked on this issue, with the result that the decision of the High Court refusing Ascendis' application to amend to introduce a new ground of attack stands, and the res judicata objection was upheld. The decision raises important questions about the application of the principle of res judicata in such cases where the Patents Act allows dual proceedings for revocation and infringement actions, the meaning of provisions of the Act as they relate to the certification of patent claims, and the broader public interest considerations implicated in patent law adjudication. This note observes that while the outcome sends a strong signal about the courts' displeasure at attempts to prosecute "repeat litigation", an unsatisfactory outcome is that patents can apparently be validated on the basis of merely one of the mandatory requirements for patent validity as required by the Act. It argues that such an outcome is undesirable and does not serve the public interest. This is because it closes the door to further challenges while potentially thousands of patents, which would not have passed the validity test had they been subjected to substantive examination, remain on the patent register.

Some views from the South African Constitutional Court on patent revocation and infringement matters: Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Others 2020 (1) SA 327 (CC)

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Mikhalien Du Bois
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
South African ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Main Issue ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The South ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
The Way

In South African law, the substantive requirements for a patent may be scrutinised during infringement proceedings or revocation proceedings. Lack of novelty (or anticipation) is a ground for revocation of a patent but can also serve as a defense in an infringement matter. After a series of decisions by the Commissioner of Patents and the Supreme Court of Appeal on infringement and revocation matters relating to Merck’s Patent 98/10975 and its alleged infringement by Cipla (now Ascendis), the Constitutional Court was asked to deliberate the matter in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Others 2020 (1) SA 327 (CC). The main issue related to the principle of res judicata, and whether invalidity of a patent may be considered as a defense during infringement matters after the validity of the patent was already determined during revocation proceedings between the same parties. The decisions also considered whether each revocation ground constituted a separate issue or whether revocation is the issue for purposes of determining whether a matter is res judicata. A review of all the preceding decisions also indicate that the Supreme Court of Appeal may have developed the way in which lack of novelty is determined in South African law, but without explicitly acknowledging that the approach is different. The Constitutional Court’s evenly split decisions (per Khampepe J and Cameron J) indicate different approaches to reaching just and fair outcomes in patent matters. While Khampepe J’s decision focuses more on the need to remove invalid patents from the register, Cameron J’s decision focuses on preventing harm from piecemeal litigation.

Summary judgment — Quo vadis?

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-114
Author(s):  
Thino Bekker
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Core ◽  
Golden Opportunity ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
Made In

The summary judgment procedure in South African law provides for a speedy judgment in favour of a deserving plaintiff where it can be shown that the defendant does not have a triable defence. In 2019 the Rules Board made certain drastic amendments to the procedure of summary judgment in the high court. In this article the historical development of the procedure of summary judgment will be discussed, and the new amendments to rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court critically evaluated. It will be argued that the amendments to rule 32 were unnecessary and that it may diminish the right to access to justice in civil disputes. It will, however, also be argued that there are some merits in the critique raised by the Rules Board in relation to rule 32 and that the Rules Board missed a golden opportunity to overhaul the entire summary judgment procedure in a more sensible manner and in line with the core constitutional values of s 34 of the Constitution. It will be argued that rule 32 should be replaced in its entirety by a new, more streamlined procedure, and some recommendations for legal reform will be made in this regard.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

scholarly journals Disclosure in Centre for Child Law v the Governing Body of Hoërskool Fochville

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Michael Tsele
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
High Court ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Children's Interests ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

When a party refers to evidentiary material in the course of litigation, ordinarily this party is under an obligation to make this evidence available to his opponent, particularly when called upon to do so. However, over the years various principles have developed which make this obligation subject to certain limitations. The Fochville cases dealt with a situation where a party to litigation sought to withhold certain information from its adversary, notwithstanding the fact that the material had been relied upon as a ground for the institution of the litigation. This note critiques the judgments of the High Court and in particular the Supreme Court of Appeal in this dispute. In so doing, it draws on useful foreign law to argue that the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment was an unfortunate one in that the court failed to clarify with reasonable precision the circumstances in which a party to litigation involving children's interests may legitimately resist disclosing evidence to his adversary, in which the party resisting disclosure invokes the principle of public interest immunity. In this regard, the note concludes that the High Court's overall approach to the issue is to be preferred.       

scholarly journals The right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the security measure of the forfeiture of cash in the jurisprudence of the Serbian Constitutional Court: Certain uncertainty

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.

Pandemic and PILs: A Study on the Approach of the High Courts in India

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77
Author(s):  
Uday Shankar ◽  
Sourya Bandyopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court

Studies in Public interest Litigation (PIL) in India are predominantly about the Supreme Court's approach in meeting the ends of justice through indigenously evolved jurisdiction. The High Courts as important constitutional bodies are more often than not remain out of detailed discussion. As the High Courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court with regard to PILs, this paper aims to study the pattern of invocation of the jurisdiction at the regional level. It surveys the variety of pleas and consequent action under PIL jurisdiction (or inaction, as the case may be) of different High Courts in India relating to covid crisis and consequential matters. To that end, it undertakes a survey of High Court orders or judgments from April to July, 2020. It seeks to lay bare the extent of demands that are made before the Courts through PIL. What kinds of action were expected from the High Courts during the pandemic? How did different Courts respond to such pleas? Were the directions and level of response homogenous or varied? The paper pursues these questions, and describes the pandemic though the lens of PIL in Indian High Courts. It goes on to argue that the High Courts in India need to take greater cognizance of their orders inter-se especially in PIL matters, as human rights protection through PIL cannot have contradictory voices.

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Public Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review forward. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Judicial Restraint and the Return to Openness: The Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the ESM and the Fiscal Treaty of 12 September 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Wendel
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Bad News ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Less Is More ◽  
Public Expectations ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
European Stability Mechanism ◽  
Media Hype ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

Sometimes less is more. Hence, it is not necessarily bad news if a judgment on a matter of fundamental public interest does not meet public expectations. And it certainly was not bad news that the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 12 September 2012 on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Fiscal Treaty did not meet the exaggerated public expectations that had been fuelled by an unprecedented media-hype.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document