In deciding whether or not to grant an interim interdict, the public interest cannot be ignored. Also, it is erroneous to admit expert evidence to determine the clarity of a claim that is alleged to be vague and unclear except where technical terms are included in such a claim.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
See Aventis v. Cipla, (Court of the Commissioner of Patents, Unreported Case No. P93/8936, Judgment delivered on 20 October 2011), para. 2.
Id.
Id. at para. 3.
Id.
Id.
Id. at para. 6.
Id.
Id. at para. 3.
Id. at para. 19.
Id. at para. 25.
Id. at para. 26.
Aventis v. Cipla [2012] ZASCA 108 (26 July 2012).
Id. at para. 21.
Id. at para. 24.
Id. at para. 25.
The Treatment Action Campaign had applied to be admitted as amicus curiae when the matter came before the appellate court.
Aventis v. Cipla [2012] at para. 44.
Id. at para. 45.
Id. at para. 55.
Id.
Id. at para. 56.
Id. at para. 57. Aventis was selling the patented drug to the state at the rate of R680 for 20 mg and R2327 for 80 mg while Cipla’s generic version was being sold for R1000 and R3500 for 20 mg and 80 mg respectively.
Id. at para. 58.
Author information
Consortia
Additional information
With a comment by E.K. Oke, LL.B (Lagos), LL.M (Singapore), PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, University College Cork, 10 Summerstown Road, Wilton, Cork, Ireland, e-mail: e.oke@umail.ucc.i.e.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal., 26 July 2012 – [2012] ZASCA 108. “Aventis Pharma SA & Ors. v. Cipla Life Sciences”. IIC 44, 244–247 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0025-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0025-6