Regents of the University of California and Others v Eurolab (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024-039643; 2023-108509) [2025] ZACCP 1 (25 February 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: The Regents of the University of California and Others v. Eurolab (Pty) Ltd and Others
Citation: Case No: 2024-039643, Patent No: 2007/10870
Date: 25 February 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications on patent law, particularly regarding the interpretation of Section 27 of the Patents Act, No. 57 of 1978. The judgment clarifies the requirements for a party to have the right to apply for a patent, which is crucial for both patent holders and potential infringers. The decision also addresses the validity of a patent and the grounds for revocation, making it significant for future patent litigation.

Cases Cited

The judgment references several key cases, including: - Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 - Hix Networking Technologies v System Publishers (Pty) 1997 1 SA 391 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

The relevant legislation includes: - Patents Act, No. 57 of 1978 - Patent Regulations

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case revolves around the validity of South African Patent No. 2007/10870, held by the Regents of the University of California and others, concerning a pharmaceutical compound known as Enzalutamide. The court had to determine whether the applicants had the right to apply for the patent and whether the patent was valid in light of claims made by the respondents regarding its invalidity.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include: - Whether the applicants were entitled to apply for the patent under Section 27 of the Patents Act. - The validity of the patent based on claims of material misrepresentation regarding the priority date. - The existence of a prima facie right for the interim interdict application.

Held

The court held that the applicants must have acquired the right to apply for the patent from the inventors before making the application. The judgment emphasized that if the applicants did not have this right, the patent would be deemed invalid.

THE FACTS

The applicants, comprising the Regents of the University of California and several Astellas Pharma entities, sought an interim interdict against Eurolab and Dis-Chem for infringing Patent No. 2007/10870, which pertains to Enzalutamide, a drug used in prostate cancer treatment. Eurolab, a generic oncology company, launched a competing product, Enzutrix, and claimed that the patent was invalid on multiple grounds, including that the applicants were not entitled to apply for the patent and that there was a misrepresentation regarding the patent's priority date.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining the validity of the patent, specifically whether the applicants had the right to apply for it under Section 27 of the Patents Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess the claims made by Eurolab and Dis-Chem regarding the patent's invalidity and whether the interim interdict should be granted.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the requirements set forth in Section 27 of the Patents Act, which stipulates that an application for a patent may be made by the inventor or by any other person acquiring the right to apply from the inventor. The court noted that the applicants were not the inventors and thus fell into the second category. The validity of the patent hinged on whether the applicants had acquired the necessary rights from all inventors before the patent application date. The court also considered the implications of any misrepresentation regarding the priority date and its effect on the patent's validity.

REMEDY

The court ultimately ruled that the applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate that they had acquired the right to apply for the patent from the inventors before the relevant date. Consequently, the patent was deemed invalid, and the interim interdict sought by the applicants was denied.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established key legal principles regarding the interpretation of Section 27 of the Patents Act, emphasizing that a party must have acquired the right to apply for a patent from the inventor prior to the application date. This case serves as a precedent for future patent applications and disputes, clarifying the obligations of applicants in proving their entitlement to patent rights.