The University of Western Australia (’UWA’) v Gray [2009] FCAFC 116 case illustrates the practical significance of having an employee’s contract clearly define the scope of an employee’s duties in order to address the issue of intellectual property ownership (see here). The same case also sheds some light on the issue of inventive concept which is worthy of consideration.

Over the past month, two Australian patents have stood up to the tough US system and registered wins for their owners.

Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 110 781 826) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2008] FCAFC 82 (28 May 2008); Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Company LLC (No 2) [2006] FCA 1787 (20 December 2006)
A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has concluded that atorvastatin calcium, the active ingredient in the cholesterol-reduction drug, Lipitor, remains under patent protection, notwithstanding that a patent for a more specific form of that drug was found to be invalid.
Back in 1987, Warner-Lambert Company, LLC (better known as Pfizer Inc.) filed for and obtained patent rights in Australia covering all forms of atorvastatin calcium (the Broader Patent). Three years later, Warner-Lambert Company filed a more restricted patent claiming only the R enantiomer forms of atorvastatin calcium (the Enantiomer Patent). Some time later generics drugs manufacturer Ranbaxy began to make its own form of atorvastatin calcium, only using the R enantiomer form of the drug. In order to distribute the drug legally in Australia though, Ranbaxy needed to remove the obstacles that were the Warner-Lambert Company patents.