AstraZeneca v Sanofi-Aventis: Patent Infringement, Medicines Act & Pharmaceutical Compositions
AstraZeneca AB (SE) sued Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging infringement of Singapore Patent No SG 89993 related to pharmaceutical compositions. Sanofi-Aventis applied for further particulars of AstraZeneca's Statement of Claim. The court, presided over by Justin Yeo AR, allowed the application in part, ordering AstraZeneca to provide more specific details regarding the alleged infringement to ensure a fair trial and prevent unnecessary costs, particularly given the implications of the Medicines Act on product licensing.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed in part. AstraZeneca was ordered to provide further particulars regarding its patent infringement claim.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
AstraZeneca sues Sanofi-Aventis for patent infringement under the Medicines Act. The court orders AstraZeneca to provide further particulars.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AstraZeneca AB (SE) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application allowed in part | Partial | |
| Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- AstraZeneca owns Singapore Patent No SG 89993 for pharmaceutical compositions.
- The patent relates to compositions comprising rosuvastatin and an inorganic salt.
- Sanofi-Aventis applied for product licenses for Rosucard Film-coated Tablets.
- AstraZeneca alleges Sanofi-Aventis's products infringe its patent.
- Sanofi-Aventis sought further particulars of AstraZeneca's infringement claim.
- The court had previously ordered Sanofi-Aventis to provide product descriptions to AstraZeneca.
5. Formal Citations
- AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd, Suit No 416 of 2011 (Summons No 471 of 2013), [2013] SGHCR 7
- AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd, , [2012] SGHC 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sanofi-Aventis submitted applications to the Health Sciences Authority for product licenses. | |
| AstraZeneca was served with a Notice to Proprietor of Patent. | |
| AstraZeneca commenced action seeking declaration of infringement. | |
| AstraZeneca filed an amended Statement of Claim (Amendment No 1). | |
| Court allowed AstraZeneca's application for discovery of the Product Descriptions. | |
| Sanofi-Aventis requested further and better particulars from AstraZeneca. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Patent Infringement
- Outcome: The court ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars regarding the alleged infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of patent claims
- Interpretation of patent specifications
- Application of Medicines Act
- Particulars of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court partially granted the defendant's application for further and better particulars.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of particulars
- Claim construction
- Disclosure requirements
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Infringement
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Patent Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Patent Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Pharmaceutical
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 16 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that section 12A of the Medicines Act creates a cause of action independent from a patent infringement action under the Patents Act. |
| Wenham Co Ltd v Champion Gas Lamp Co Ltd and Todlenhaupt and Co | High Court | Yes | [1891] 8 RPC 22 | England and Wales | Cited as the locus classicus for the traditional position that a patentee is not ordered to give particulars of the construction which the patentee proposes to put on the patent claims. |
| Marsden v Albrecht and Albrecht | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1910) 27 RPC 785 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff must inform the defendants of sufficient particulars such that the defendants would know the case that he was going to make. |
| Aktiengesellschaft Für Autogene Aluminium Schweissung v London Aluminium Company, Limited | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1919] 2 Ch 67 | England and Wales | Cited for the function of particulars of breaches is to point out to the defendant what specific act on his part was complained of so as to prevent surprise at trial. |
| J K Smit & Sons of Canada Ltd v Fastcut Bits Ltd | Ontario Supreme Court | Yes | [1949] 9 CPR 138 | Canada | Applied the principles from Marsden regarding the requirements for particulars in patent infringement cases. |
| Unifloc Reagents Ltd v Newstead Colliery Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1943) 60 RPC 165 | England and Wales | Cited to show discontent with the rule requiring parties to construct their claims. |
| Lux Traffic Controls Limited v The Staffordshire Public Works Company Limited | Patents Court | Yes | [1991] 4 RPC 73 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that particulars will not be ordered of construction of a patent claim. |
| Novartis AG, Ciba Vision AB v Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited | Patents Court | Yes | [2008] EWHC 293 (Pat) | England and Wales | Cited as an instructive case where the Patents Court ordered the provision of particulars in response to the defendant’s request for information concerning the construction of the patent in the suit. |
| John Zink Co Ltd v Wilkinson | N/A | Yes | [1973] RPC 717 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that in actions for breach of confidence, extra care must be taken to ensure clear particularisation. |
| Chiarapurk Jack v Haw par Brothers International Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 620 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in actions for breach of confidence, extra care must be taken to ensure clear particularisation. |
| Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1997] RPC 289 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that courts are careful to ensure that breach of confidence claims are not used to oppress and harass competitors. |
| Haslam & Co v Hall | N/A | Yes | (1887) 4 RPC 203 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that there is no objection to the patentee stating that he relies on all the claims in his patent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Medicines Act | Singapore |
| Patents Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Patent
- Infringement
- Pharmaceutical composition
- Rosuvastatin
- Inorganic salt
- Particulars
- Medicines Act
- Product license
- Stabilising agent
15.2 Keywords
- patent infringement
- pharmaceutical
- rosuvastatin
- medicines act
- particulars
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Patents | 90 |
| Pharmaceutical Law | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Patent Law
- Civil Procedure
- Intellectual Property