Last updated: April 20, 2025
Overview of Key Findings
The Australian drug patent AU2018278332 operates within a complex legal framework governing pharmaceutical inventions, encompassing critical aspects of claim scope, term extensions, validity challenges, and competition. Recent jurisprudence emphasizes strict adherence to statutory requirements for claim support, inventive step, and anti-evergreening provisions[1][3][15]. This analysis synthesizes principles from landmark cases, legislative amendments, and patent office guidelines to evaluate the patent’s enforceability, potential vulnerabilities, and strategic positioning within Australia’s pharmaceutical landscape.
Claim Construction and Scope Under Australian Law
Claim Types and Permissible Formats
Australian patent law permits multiple claim formats for drug patents, including:
- Method of treatment claims: Directly protect therapeutic applications (e.g., "Use of compound X for treating condition Y")[2][20].
- Swiss-type claims: Protect manufacturing processes tailored to specific indications (e.g., "Compound X for use in the manufacture of a medicament for disease Y")[2][20].
- Formulation claims: Cover novel drug compositions, excipients, or delivery mechanisms[24][25].
The Fenofibrate Case (2020) established that Swiss-type claims are infringed only if the generic product’s labeling, formulation, or packaging explicitly indicates the patented use. In contrast, method claims are infringed if the manufacturer has "reason to believe" the product will be used off-label for the patented indication[2]. For AU2018278332, the claim type determines infringement risks for generics employing skinny labeling strategies.
Support and Sufficiency Requirements
Under §40(3) of the Patents Act 1990, claims must not exceed the technical contribution disclosed in the specification. In MSD v Sandoz (2020), broad claims covering 15 pneumococcal serotypes were invalidated because the specification only enabled 13, highlighting the risks of overreaching claim scope[17]. Similarly, Cytec Industries v Nalco (2021) invalidated claims for mining chemicals where the description failed to support the full range of pH values claimed[19].
For AU2018278332, examiners will assess whether:
- The specification provides enough examples to justify generic claims (e.g., covering all dosages when only one is tested)[9][18].
- Functional language (e.g., "effective amount") is sufficiently defined through experimental data or known principles[3][40].
Patent Term Extensions and Regulatory Challenges
Eligibility for Term Extensions
A patent term extension (PTE) under §70 requires:
- A pharmaceutical substance per se disclosed and claimed in the patent.
- The first regulatory approval (ARTG listing) of any substance within the claims[1][27].
In Ono Pharmaceutical v Commissioner (2022), the Full Court held that the PTE clock starts at the first approval of any product falling within the claims, even if it is not the patentee’s own product. This prevented Ono from extending their patent based on a later-approved product (KEYTRUDA vs. OPDIVO)[1]. For AU2018278332, early ARTG listings by competitors could truncate its extension period.
Strategic Implications of Multiple Listings
The Merck v Sandoz case (2022) illustrates risks when patents cover multiple products. Merck’s patent covered sitagliptin (approved 2006) and a sitagliptin-metformin combination (approved 2008). Because the combination’s approval triggered the PTE, Merck gained exclusivity over both products during the extended term. However, the Court criticized this as an unjustified "evergreening" tactic[1][8].
To avoid similar challenges, AU2018278332’s proprietor should consider:
- Filing divisional applications to isolate distinct products[27].
- Ensuring each claim subset aligns with a single ARTG-listed substance.
Validity Challenges and Comparative Obviousness
Inventive Step Post-Bayer v Sandoz (2024)
The Bayer decision recalibrated Australia’s obviousness test for pre-Raising the Bar patents. The Full Court held that routine drug development steps (e.g., formulation optimization, dosage trials) lack inventiveness unless accompanied by unexpected results[15][16]. For AU2018278332, claims directed to:
- Dosage regimens: Must demonstrate non-obvious adjustments (e.g., once-daily vs. twice-daily dosing with superior efficacy)[25].
- Formulations: Require evidence that excipient choices solve stability/bioavailability issues unrecognized in prior art[24].
Support and Enablement Post-MSD
Post-Raising the Bar, specifications must enable the full scope of claims without undue experimentation. In MSD, claims to 15 serotypes failed because the specification only taught 13, rendering the broader claims unsupported[17]. AU2018278332’s claims covering chemical analogs or dosage ranges will face similar scrutiny unless accompanied by systematic data or prophetic examples[3][40].
Competitive Landscape and Evergreening Risks
Anti-Evergreening Provisions
Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (ss26C–26D) penalizes patentees who seek injunctions without reasonable prospects of success, aiming to deter frivolous litigation delaying generics[8][13]. In Commonwealth v Sanofi (2023), the government failed to claim damages for delayed clopidogrel price reductions, underscoring the high bar for proving causal links between injunctions and public cost burdens[4].
Patent Thickets and Divisional Strategies
The Ritonavir Patent Landscape Report (WIPO, 2011) identified "innovation tracks" where follow-on patents (e.g., formulations, combinations) extended protection beyond the original compound[11]. For AU2018278332, competitors may:
- File oppositions under §75(1) targeting speculative formulations[9][26].
- Cite prior art on analogous drug delivery systems[36][38].
Proprietors can mitigate risks by:
- Securing data exclusivity for novel excipients[24].
- Drafting narrow claims tied to specific pharmacokinetic profiles[25].
Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations
AU2018278332’s enforceability hinges on:
- Claim Specificity: Narrowing claims to cover only validated embodiments (e.g., tested dosages, confirmed excipients).
- Term Management: Isolating key products via divisional applications to maximize PTE eligibility[27].
- Validity Defense: Preemptively addressing obviousness through comparative efficacy data and unexpected results[15][25].
The Australian patent landscape increasingly favors generics, as seen in Novartis v Pharmacor (2024), where a PTE was revoked due to insufficient disclosure of a salt complex[25]. Proactive portfolio management and adherence to support requirements will be critical for AU2018278332’s longevity.
Key Takeaways
- Claim Scope: Balance breadth with enablement to avoid §40(3) rejections.
- Term Extensions: Align ARTG listings with divisional filings to prevent overlap.
- Litigation Risks: Anticipate §75 oppositions and prioritize evidence of inventive step.
FAQs
-
Q: Can AU2018278332 cover multiple indications under Swiss-type claims?
A: Yes, but infringement requires generics to explicitly reference the patented use in labeling[2].
-
Q: How does the first ARTG listing affect the PTE?
A: The earliest listing starts the 5-year PTE clock, even for non-commercialized products[1][27].
-
Q: Are formulation patents vulnerable to obviousness challenges?
A: Yes, unless excipient choices solve technical problems unrecognized in prior art[24][25].
-
Q: What evidence defends against §75 oppositions?
A: Clinical data showing synergistic effects or improved patient outcomes[15][25].
-
Q: How does skinny labeling impact infringement?
A: Immunizes against Swiss-type claims but not method claims if off-label use is foreseeable[2][20].
References
- https://www.fpapatents.com/news-insights/insights/how-appealing-was-2022-some-key-australian-patent-law-cases-of-2022/
- https://www.spruson.com/skinny-labelling-in-the-australian-context-an-overview/
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.griffithhack.com/insights/publications/australian-government-again-denied-325m-damages-claim-in-clopidogrel-injunction-dispute/
- https://www.gestalt.law/insights/exploring-the-patentability-of-kits-in-australia-challenges-and-solutions
- https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol47/iss1/3/
- https://powerpatent.com/blog/ai-powered-patent-claim-scope-analysis
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/tools-and-research/professional-resources/data-research-and-reports/australian-ip-report-2024/Chapter-2-IP-and-competition
- https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/patents/946/wipo_pub_946.pdf
- https://www.treatmentactiongroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/hcv_tb_longacting_patent_trends.pdf
- https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1707958/30_1_2.pdf
- https://www.ajpark.com/insights/summary-of-the-australian-pharmaceuticals-patents-review/
- https://www.pearceip.law/2024/10/24/full-court-clarifies-and-recalibrates-the-obviousness-test-for-pre-raising-the-bar-patents/
- https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/routine-risks-full-court-invalidates-two-follow-on-pharmaceutical-patents/
- https://www.minterellison.com/articles/federal-court-guidance-on-the-patent-claim-support-requirements
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.corrs.com.au/insights/court-confirms-patent-rights-must-align-with-and-not-extend-beyond-the-technical-contribution
- https://www.bennettphilp.com.au/blog/swiss-type-patent-claims-australia
- https://blog.patentology.com.au/2024/12/seeking-patent-professionals-to-help.html
- https://www.noxopharm.com/PDF/93f409df-d5f5-4326-a98b-00073f10e92d/VeyondaAwardedFirstAllowedPatentApplication
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.pearceip.law/2025/01/08/excipients-welcome-federal-court-upholds-formulation-patent-extensions/
- https://www.allens.com.au/insights-news/insights/2024/11/patent-term-extensions-under-siege-a-new-era-of-challenges-for-pharmaceutical-patentees/
- https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/life-sciences-pharma-ip-litigation-2025/australia/trends-and-developments
- https://www.spruson.com/the-australian-federal-court-removes-a-pharmaceutical-patent-term-extension-because-of-the-patentees-own-earlier-registered-goods/
- https://www.islandpharmaceuticals.com/site/pdf/26c4ad17-4a55-4874-ba90-fa3df471cd22/ILA-granted-key-Australian-patent-for-ISLA101.pdf
- https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/search-existing-patents
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/search-existing-patents
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/search-existing-patents
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.dilworthip.com/resources/news/patent-landscape-analysis/
- https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/02/25/3032292/28124/en/Orthopaedic-Braces-and-Supports-Patent-Landscape-Report-2025-United-States-Leads-with-Over-550-Patents-Filed-Historically-and-230-Currently-In-Progress.html
- https://www.ipcheckups.com/patent-landscape-analysis-overview/
- https://www.ipcheckups.com/patent-landscape-analysis-how-to-5-steps/
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/search-existing-patents
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/search-existing-patents
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
- http://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.6.7.3-support-for-the-claims
