Logo image
Biosimilars: The challenges of novelty, inventive step and sufficiency
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Biosimilars: The challenges of novelty, inventive step and sufficiency

Teddy Henriksen and Jay Sanderson
Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol.25, pp.973-991
2018
url
http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/category/journal-of-law-and-medicine/View
Webpage

Abstract

Medical and Health Sciences Law and Legal Studies Philosophy and Religious Studies biosimilars inventive step novelty patents Patents Act 1990 (Cth) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme sufficiency
In order to understand the relationship between patents and biosimilars in Australia better, this article examines whether, and in what circumstances, biosimilars can be patented under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). Part II provides the necessary background in discussing the structure and function of biosimilars as well as the regulation of, and key arguments for, biosimilars in Australia. Part III explores the key challenges faced in patenting biosimilars in Australia, particularly the requirements of novelty, inventive step and sufficiency of description. In so doing, the recent case of Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 285 provides some guidance and is discussed. The article concludes in Part IV with consideration of the implications of biosimilar patents for manufacturers, as well as access and affordability of treatment to the community and the interaction between government subsidy through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and biosimilars.

Details

Metrics

547 Record Views
Logo image