Biosimilars Deals 2021

Sandoz AG v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH [2024] FCAFC 135

Sandoz has triumphed in its appeal regarding the validity of two of Bayer’s Australian Xarelto® (rivaroxaban) patents.  On 23 October 2024, the Full Court unanimously overturned Justice Rofe’s decision of 2 November 2023, holding that the two Bayer patents lack an inventive step in light of the common general knowledge taken together with a prior art patent specification.  The parties have been given until 4 November to propose orders giving effect to the Full Court’s decision.

Subject to Bayer applying for, and being granted, special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, the Full Court decision marks the end of the road for Bayer’s domination of the Australian rivaroxaban market. As we reported at the time of Justice Rofe’s decision (see here and here for our article and blog), 158 rivaroxaban products have been approved by the TGA (149 of them generic products).  This number has not changed, although Teva and Alphapharm have now obtained PBS listing for generic rivaroxaban products.  We would expect to see many more generic competitors moving swiftly to obtain PBS listing for, and launch, their rivaroxaban products in Australia.

In overturning Justice Rofe’s decision, the Full Court has clarified the bar that needs to be met to prove obviousness and has recalibrated the “ascertainment” test under the “pre-Raising the Bar” (pre-RTB) version of the Patents Act.  This clarification and recalibration will not be welcome news for patentees but will be celebrated by companies seeking to challenge the validity of pre-RTB patents.

The Patents

The two Bayer patents in suit were:

• Australian Patent No. 2004305226, entitled “Method for the production of a solid, orally applicable pharmaceutical composition” (the 226 Patent). The 226 Patent is directed to orally administrable pharmaceutical compositions comprising rivaroxaban in hydrophilized form and the use of those pharmaceutical compositions for the prophylaxis and/or treatment of a thromboembolic disease; and
• Australian Patent No. 2006208613, entitled “Prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders” (the 613 Patent). The 613 Patent is directed to a method of treatment of thromboembolic disorders by once daily administration of a rapid-release tablet comprising rivaroxaban.

Appeal Grounds

Sandoz’s appeal was limited to appealing Justice Rofe’s obviousness finding, specifically raising the following three grounds of appeal:

• Ground One – Ascertainment: that Justice Rofe incorrectly found that a person skilled in the relevant art could not be reasonably expected to have ascertained International Patent Publication No. WO 01/47919 (WO 919) within the meaning of s 7(3) of the pre-RTB version of the Patents Act;
• Ground Two – CGK + WO 919 Obviousness: that Justice Rofe incorrectly found that the inventions claimed in each of the 226 Patent and the 613 Patent involved an inventive step in light of the common general knowledge (CGK) together with WO 919; and
• Ground Three – CGK + Blood Extracts Obviousness: that Justice Rofe incorrectly found that the invention claimed in the 613 Patent involved an inventive step in the light of the CGK together with Abstracts 3003, 3004 and 3010 published in the November 2003 supplement of Blood (the Blood Abstracts).

Sandoz succeeded on Appeal Grounds One and Two, resulting in Justice Rofe’s decision being overturned.

The Full Court’s Decision

Ground One – Ascertainment

Under the pre-RTB law, in order to rely on WO 919 to show lack of inventive step under s 7(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), Sandoz had to establish that the person skilled in the relevant art could be reasonably expected to have ascertained, understood and regarded WO 919 as relevant.  This requirement no longer applies under post-RTB law.

At first instance, Justice Rofe had been critical of Sandoz’s evidence on “ascertainment”.  Justice Rofe considered that Sandoz had taken an impermissible “short cut” in its evidence, including because:

• its evidence of a hypothetical literature search conducted by a patent searcher for the purpose of the litigation was limited to one search term (“factor Xa inhibitors”) and one database, when Sandoz’s expert witness (Professor Roberts) had said he would have conducted searches on more than one database and with a number of search terms; and
• Professor Roberts was provided with a spreadsheet of search results and identified 190 of the 218 search results as being “top priority”, including WO 919. However, he had not been provided with copies of any of those documents to consider.

In these circumstances, Justice Rofe said: “The question of whether Professor Roberts would have selected WO 919 if he was provided with the full suite of results from searches undertaken across all his suggested databases, and with broader search terms than just “factor Xa inhibitors”” could not be answered on the evidence before her.

The Full Court held that Justice Rofe had fallen into error in determining lack of ascertainment for WO 919, in particular because:

• The standard imposed by s 7(3) does not require proof that the hypothetical skilled person would ascertain the document. Rather, it requires proof sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that the skilled person would do so, on the balance of probabilities.
• In this case, the evidence established that the person skilled in the art would have conducted searches of (inter alia) the patent database using search terms including “factor Xa inhibitors”. Contrary to the submission by Bayer, it therefore did not matter that the skilled person would have also conducted searches using additional search terms.
• In relation to Bayer’s complaint that Professor Roberts was not provided with all of the documents which he identified from the spreadsheet as being “top priority” the Full Court said it was not necessary for evidence to be adduced that the skilled person would prefer, prioritise or select WO 919 over all other information which they could be reasonably expected to have discovered or found out, including other information which was not adduced into evidence
• Despite accepting that it was not necessary in every case for a literature search to be carried out in order to establish the “ascertainment” requirement, Justice Rofe required, in effect, that such a search be performed, and that Professor Roberts select WO 919 from the broader array of search results.
• In summary, it was not to the point that additional searches might have been performed (including by reference to additional search terms), or that the skilled person could also be expected to have found additional documents or information, or that the skilled person would have been required to review such additional documents or information. This was especially the case as Bayer had led no evidence to suggest that a reasonable search of a patent database would not have found WO 919, or that WO 919 would not have been identified out of a broader search involving other databases or search terms, or that WO 919 would not have been identified as being relevant upon being reviewed.

Ground Two –CGK +  WO919 Obviousness

In holding that the inventions claimed in each of the 226 Patent and the 613 Patent involved an inventive step (were not obvious) in light of the CGK together with WO 919, Justice Rofe accepted the evidence that:

• WO 919 would be of interest and value to a drug development team seeking to develop a new antithrombotic drug and that, on reading WO 919, the skilled reader would focus in particular on rivaroxaban because it was listed as a particular chemical, discussed in examples and the only compound the subject of a claim; and
• the skilled person reading WO 919 would be likely to select rivaroxaban as a or the lead candidate, to take into further drug development work which would involve the full suite of pre-clinical tests required in order to consider whether rivaroxaban was suitable to take into Phase I, first-in-human trials.

Justice Rofe then went on to apply the well accepted “reformulated Cripps question”; that is: whether the person skilled in the art at the relevant date with the relevant knowledge would directly be led, as a matter of course, to try the claimed invention in the expectation that it might well produce a useful alternative to, or a better drug than, the existing compound.  Applying this test, Justice Rofe held that:

• the well-known standard series of steps of a drug development pathway were not “routine steps”; and
• Bayer’s drug development journey was more akin to a “voyage of discovery” than the “working towards the invention with an expectation of success”.

The Full Court disagreed with her Honour’s application of the reformulated Cripps question, finding, in summary that:

1. Routine Steps: In the field of drug development, the need to carry out clinical trials and other tests in order to obtain relevant data can be regarded as routine work consistent with a finding of obviousness. In the Full Court’s opinion, Justice Rofe had applied the incorrect test by:

• placing too much emphasis on the “risks and unknowns” associated with the pre-clinical and clinical tests, which would have been undertaken as a matter of course following the selection of rivaroxaban as a lead candidate. In this regard, the Full Court noted that, notwithstanding those risks and uncertainties, Justice Rofe had found that the skilled person reading WO 919 was likely to select rivaroxaban as a or the lead candidate to take into further drug development work; and
• determining that those steps, which followed such a selection, would not be “routine”. In this regard, the Full Court noted that there was no evidence before Justice Rofe, and that her Honour made no finding, that any particular problem, difficulty or issue would have been expected to have arisen or would have arisen during the pre-clinical and clinical trials which would conventionally be carried out following the selection of rivaroxaban as a lead candidate. There was also no evidence, or finding, that the formulation of rivaroxaban in the 226 Patent or its dosage regime adopted in the 613 Patent would not have been identified during the course of these trials.

2. Expectation of Success: The Full Court held that the relevant expectation is to be measured against the ordinary level of expectation and risk inherent in routine work in the particular field. The relevant test is not knowing that steps will or would or even may well work, but merely expecting that the steps may well work.  In the Full Court’s opinion, Justice Rofe had applied the incorrect test by:

• using language which indicated that, to have the requisite expectation, the person skilled in the art would need to be able to make predictions as to efficacy, side effects and safety or adverse events and toxicities and that, in order to have the requisite expectation, the research project could not be unpredictable; and
• requiring that it be demonstrated that the person skilled in the art would have the requisite expectation at each stage of the drug development process, such that they need to have an expectation that the chosen compound would pass through all the drug development stages.

Ground 3 – Disclosure of Blood Abstracts

Ground three related to the nature of the disclosure in other s7(3) documents, collectively referred to as the Blood Abstracts.  Justice Rofe had found that the Blood Abstracts could be reasonably expected to have been ascertained, understood, and regarded as relevant by the person skilled in the art.  However, it was held that there was no disclosure of rivaroxaban in the Blood Extracts as they referred to rivaroxaban as “BAY 59-7939”, and that reference was not CGK.

Although the Full Court did not need to consider this ground given the findings on the first two grounds, the Full Court, in obiter, agreed with Justice Rofe that there was no disclosure of rivaroxaban in the Blood Abstracts.

Conclusion

The Full Court’s decision is significant for both patentees and patent challengers.  The Full Court has clarified the bar that needs to be met to prove obviousness and has recalibrated the bar that needs to be met to meet the “ascertainment” test under the “pre-Raising the Bar” version of the Patents Act. This clarification and recalibration will not be welcome news for patentees but will be welcomed by companies seeking to challenge the validity of “pre-Raising the Bar” patents.

Given the decision’s importance both legally and commercially, Bayer may apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.  In the meantime, generic competitors may now move swiftly to obtain PBS listing for, and launch, their rivaroxaban products in Australia.

About Pearce IP

Pearce IP is a boutique firm offering intellectual property specialist lawyers, patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys to the life sciences industries (in particular, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, biotech, ag-tech and food tech).  Pearce IP is the 2021 ‘Intellectual Property Team of the Year’ (Lawyers Weekly Australian Law Awards) and was shortlisted for the same award in 2022.  Pearce IP is ranked in IAM Patent 1000 and Managing IP (MIP) IP Stars, in Australasian Lawyer 5 Star Awards as a ‘5 Star’ firm, and the Legal 500 APAC Guide for Intellectual Property.

Our leaders have been recognised in virtually every notable IP listing for their legal, patent and trade mark excellence including: IAM Patent 1000, IAM Strategy 300, MIP IP Stars, Doyles Guide, WIPR Leaders, 5 Star IP Lawyers, Best Lawyers, and Australasian Lawyer 5 Star Awards, and have been honoured with many awards including Australian Law Awards – IP Partner of the Year, Women in Law Awards – Partner of the Year, Women in Business Law Awards - Patent Lawyer of the Year (Asia Pacific), Most Influential Lawyers (Changemaker), among other awards.

ResMed Pty Ltd v Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited [2024] APO 30

Background

In a recent decision of the Australian Patent Office, Delegate McCaffery has ruled on opposition proceedings between ResMed Pty Ltd (ResMed) and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (Fisher & Paykel).  The proceedings concerned six patent applications relating to patient interfaces for delivering breathing gases, with specific focus on nasal seals for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy:

• AU2020223628 (‘628)
• AU2021201838 (‘838)
• AU2021201840 (‘840)
• AU2021201841 (‘841)
• AU2021201842 (‘842)
• AU2021201843 (‘843)

Each application claimed an inflatable nasal seal with a soft, flexible central portion and stiffer side portions conforming to the nose under pressure, including nasal locators with varying stiffness to ensure proper fit and seal. 

ResMed challenged the validity of these applications on multiple grounds, such as novelty, inventive step, clarity, support, succinctness, utility and manner of manufacture.  ResMed failed on all grounds of invalidity it raised.  However, in exercising his discretion under section 60(3) of the Patents Act 1990 to consider additional grounds of invalidity, the Delegate found the ‘841 patent’s claims invalid for lack of support.

Key Issues:

The key issues included:

Novelty

ResMed raised several prior art citations on novelty: four US patents, as well as public use information regarding the Sullivan Bubble Mask, the Respironics ComfortCurve™, and the Respironics Monarch Mini. In all cases, the Delegate found that the prior art did not anticipate the claims, noting:

• the lack of “clear and unmistakable directions” in respect of the US patents; and
• the lack of clear evidence that users, at the relevant time, fitted the prior use masks in a manner that took all the essential features of the claims in issue.

Inventive Step

ResMed presented two main arguments on inventive step based on common general knowledge (CGK) alone:

1. The applications failed to disclose useful advances over prior art, solutions to particular problems, or overcoming any difficulty.

2. Absent a specific problem, the invention merely related to an alternative nasal mask for CPAP therapy, with the claims’ features being “well known” or routine variations.

Ultimately, the Delegate was satisfied that the combination of features in the claims was not obvious in light of the CGK alone.  The Delegate highlighted that the invention’s configuration, where side portions seal against the outer surfaces of the sides of the nose to support and stabilize the seal, was not CGK.  The evidence suggested such designs were typically avoided due to potential discomfort, and demonstrated a focus on low-profile masks that sit below the user’s nose.

ResMed also argued obviousness on the basis of CGK taken together with individual prior art masks. ResMed argued that each prior art mask was an example of a useful inflatable mask, and any differences between each prior art mask and the claimed mask were routine variations.  ResMed did not support its position with any evidence. The Delegate rejected ResMed’s arguments, describing ResMed’s submissions as “boilerplate submissions” which were “so vague as to preclude any identification of the case to be answered.”

Clarity

The Delegate dismissed ResMed’s submissions that several terms in the claims lacked clarity.  The Delegate was satisfied that:

• a skilled person could give terms, such as “side portions” and “central portions”, practical meaning, including where users have varying facial geometry;
• terms like “outer-wall”, “inward-facing wall” and “perimeter portion/peripheral portion” were clear when read in context as referring to the structure forming the inflatable seal; and
• terms like “top edge”, “end edge” and “lower edge” were clear in the context of the mask’s structure.

ResMed argued that terms like “substantially parallel” and “substantially normal” lacked a practical benchmark. The Delegate disagreed, finding that the specification provided sufficient context for proper interpretation.  The term “much stiffer” was challenged as being unclear, but the Delegate agreed with expert evidence that a skilled person would understand this to mean the material is sufficiently stiff to achieve the desired structural purposes.

Support

ResMed argued that the specification did not disclose an invention at all or identify the relevant technical contribution; and that, to the extent that the embodiments disclosed some technical contribution, then the claims were broader than those embodiments.  The Delegate dismissed these arguments, noting that ResMed’s submissions did not engage with key considerations relevant to the ground of support and that there was no requirement for the specification to explicitly state the technical contribution.  A key deficiency of ResMed’s case was that its expert was unable to determine what the invention actually was; so the Delegate considered that it followed that this expert would not be in a position to provide a definitive opinion on where the technical contribution lay.

The Delegate identified the technical contribution as a nasal seal with specific features, including a face-contacting side made of soft flexible material, a central portion extending across the nose base, and side portions extending from each end to cover the sides of the nose.  The seal’s face-contacting side was described as supple, conforming to the nose’s surfaces under internal pressure. Exercising his discretion under s 60(3) of the Patents Act 1990 to consider additional grounds of invalidity, the Delegate noted that the ‘841 patent’s claims did not include all these features and thus exceeded the technical contribution.  Fisher & Paykel conceded this point, indicating its intention to amend the ‘841 patent after the opposition decision was delivered.

Remaining grounds of opposition and finding

The Delegate quickly addressed the remaining grounds of opposition: succinctness, utility, and manner of manufacture.  On succinctness, ResMed’s argument regarding the “extraordinary” number of claims across the patent family was rejected, as each application had only a single independent claim and was not “unduly prolix” according to the Delegate.  On utility, the Delegate agreed with Fisher & Paykel that the patents provided a useful choice by offering an alternative CPAP interface with an inflatable nasal seal design.  On manner of manufacture, the Delegate found the mask’s features had a working interrelationship and were not a mere collocation of parts.

Outcome

ResMed’s opposition was entirely unsuccessful, with ResMed failing on all the grounds of invalidity it raised. The only successful ground (support) was one raised by the Delegate exercising his s 60(3) discretion. Accordingly, the Delegate directed all applications (except ‘841) to proceed to grant.  The ‘841 claims were found to be unsupported as they lacked the feature of a supple material conforming to the surface of the user’s nose.  Fisher & Paykel was given two months to propose amendments to ‘841’s claims to address this issue.

Implications

This decision emphasises the critical importance of expert evidence in opposition proceedings, as well as the power of the discretion given to the Commissioner and his delegates under s 60(3) of the Patents Act 1990 to consider additional grounds of invalidity.  In this case, ResMed’s evidence and arguments fell short in key respects, leading to ResMed failing on all the grounds of invalidity it raised.  The only successful ground (support) was one raised by the Delegate exercising his s 60(3) discretion.

About Pearce IP

Pearce IP is a boutique firm offering intellectual property specialist lawyers, patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys to the life sciences industries (in particular, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, biotech, ag-tech and food tech).  Pearce IP is the 2021 ‘Intellectual Property Team of the Year’ (Lawyers Weekly Australian Law Awards) and was shortlisted for the same award in 2022.  Pearce IP is ranked in IAM Patent 1000 and Managing IP (MIP) IP Stars, in Australasian Lawyer 5 Star Awards as a ‘5 Star’ firm, and the Legal 500 APAC Guide for Intellectual Property.

Our leaders have been recognised in virtually every notable IP listing for their legal, patent and trade mark excellence including: IAM Patent 1000, IAM Strategy 300, MIP IP Stars, Doyles Guide, WIPR Leaders, 5 Star IP Lawyers, Best Lawyers, and Australasian Lawyer 5 Star Awards, and have been honoured with many awards including Australian Law Awards – IP Partner of the Year, Women in Law Awards – Partner of the Year, Women in Business Law Awards - Patent Lawyer of the Year (Asia Pacific), Most Influential Lawyers (Changemaker), among other awards.

New Zealand Intellectual Property Office- Trade Marks [2024] NZIPOTM 31 (06 August 2024)

Barilla G. e R. Fratelli- Societa per Azioni (”Barilla Group”), owner of the famous BARILLA brand, unsuccessfully opposed an application to register the words “Barilla Dumpling” as a trade mark in respect of “Asian-style restaurant services” in New Zealand.  This case demonstrates the necessity of accurate pleadings in trade mark opposition and revocation proceedings in New Zealand.

Background

The Applicants, the Shaos, applied in August 2016 to register the mark BARILLA DUMPLING for Asian-style restaurant services.  During examination, Barilla Group’s registration for CASA BARILLA was cited as an objection with the applicants overcoming the objection by relying on honest concurrent use and the application was accepted on that basis.  On 20 April 2018, Barilla Group opposed the BARILLA DUMPLING application based on several registrations for marks being or including the word BARILLA.

Key Issues:

1. Oppositions based on prior marks

The New Zealand trade mark opposition system requires the Assistant Commissioner to consider the status of the Opponent’s marks at the filing date of the opposed application and at the time the opposed application would proceed to registration (ie at the date of the hearing): International Consolidated Business Proprietary Limited v SC Johnson & Son Incorporated [2020] NZSC 110 (ZIPLOC).  Following ZIPLOC, the usual practice is to request that the effective date of revocation for non-use of a blocking mark be backdated to a date before the filing date of the opposed application.  This eliminates the blocking mark’s existence at the relevant time being the filing of the blocked application.

In this case, the Opponent’s partially-revoked marks had to be considered with their original, unrevoked specifications for the purposes of the opposition.  The Assistant Commissioner was bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation in ZIPLOC of the Trade Marks Act 2002, requiring consideration to be given to the state of the registry at the time opposed application was filed.  The Applicants had been successful in partially revoking three of the opponent’s registrations for non-use, but only as of various dates after the filing date of the BARILLA DUMPLING application.  In addition, it was not possible to backdate revocation of the Opponent’s marks to before their application date because that date was less than the minimum three-year non-use period from the date of actual registration.  (The Applicants were also probably unaware of the need to backdate, given that ZIPLOC had not yet been determined at the time of the revocation applications.)

2. Similarity of the marks and the likelihood of confusion (s25(1)(b)

25(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 prohibits the Commissioner from registering a trade mark if it is similar to a prior trade mark and covers similar goods/services as the prior mark, and use is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Barilla Group pressed several marks under this ground including BARILLA CENTRE FOR FOOD & NUTRITION in Classes 35, 41 and 42, BARILLA and in Class 30 and CASA BARILLA in Classes 29, 30, 41 and 43.  Of these marks, only the CASA BARILLA mark was held to cover relevant goods and services but, at the time of the hearing, the mark had been partially revoked for non-use and only covered “entertainment namely wine and food tasting” services in Class 41.  The Applicants’ Asian-style restaurant services were held to be similar to Barilla Group’s wine and food tasting services, the marks were held to be similar for the purpose of section 25, and the Assistant Commissioner found that there was a likelihood of confusion at the filing date of the opposed application due to the broader range of goods and services (even if the likelihood of confusion had subsided by the time of the hearing).

3. Well-known prior marks (section 25(1)(c))

Barilla Group also opposed the BARILLA DUMPLINGS application on the basis that the BARILLA and  trade marks were well known in New Zealand at the filing date of the opposed application.  Surprisingly (to the Pearce IP trade mark team who love a heaping bowl of BARILLA pasta), the Assistant Commission rejected this ground of opposition, finding that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to establish that the Opponent’s BARILLA marks were well-known in New Zealand.

4. Defences to section 25

Section 26 of the NZ Trade Marks Act allows trade mark applicants to overcome objections, including oppositions, raised under section 25 if the applicant(s) can show either honest concurrent use of the applied-for mark or that special circumstances exist that merit the applied-for mark being allowed to proceed to registration (such as prior use).

The Applicants did not plead section 26 as a defence in their counterstatement to the opposition even though the Applicants had argued special circumstances at examination and the opposed application had been accepted on the basis of honest concurrent use.  The Assistant Commissioner found that the failure to plead section 26 in the counterstatement meant that it would be unfair to Barilla Group to rely on prior use alone to establish special circumstances under section 26.

However, the Assistant Commissioner held that special circumstances did, in fact, exist given that:

1. There was no confusion or actual confusion despite a long period of concurrent use (since June 2010) so the impact on the public was likely to be minimal;

2. Barilla Group’s use of its BARILLA marks (and any resulting goodwill) is strongly associated with Italian cuisine whereas the Applicants’ mark was specifically limited to Asian-style restaurants so any damage to Barilla Group’s goodwill seemed unlikely;
3. There was honest concurrent use for at least a three year period between 2013 and 2016;
4. It was impossible for the Applicants to ask for revocation of Barilla Group’s marks to take effect from before the filing date of their application; and
5. Even taking into account the partial revocations which were backdated to July 2022, the parties’ marks had coexisted without confusion for almost six years.

As a result, the Applicants succeeded in obtaining registration of the BARILLA DUMPLING mark for Asian-style restaurant services based on special circumstances.

Implications

It is still possible to obtain registration of a trade mark in New Zealand, based on special circumstances, when:

1. the application is blocked by an earlier-registered mark; and
2. the blocking mark is revoked for non-use; but
3. the revocation is not (or could not be) backdated to before the application date of the blocked mark.

Best practice remains to ensure that revocations of potentially blocking marks are backdated, where possible, to before the filing date of the blocked application.

To establish that a trade mark is well-known in New Zealand requires carefully prepared, cogent evidence. Evidence of fame in another country, or general evidence of sales and promotion in New Zealand, is unlikely to be enough on its own.

About Pearce IP

Pearce IP is a boutique firm offering intellectual property specialist lawyers, patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys to the life sciences industries (in particular, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, biotech, ag-tech and food tech).  Pearce IP is the 2021 ‘Intellectual Property Team of the Year’ (Lawyers Weekly Australian Law Awards) and was shortlisted for the same award in 2022.  Pearce IP is ranked in IAM Patent 1000 and Managing IP (MIP) IP Stars, in Australasian Lawyer 5 Star Awards as a ‘5 Star’ firm, and the Legal 500 APAC Guide for Intellectual Property.

Our leaders have been recognised in virtually every notable IP listing for their legal, patent and trade mark excellence including: IAM Patent 1000, IAM Strategy 300, MIP IP Stars, Doyles Guide, WIPR Leaders, 5 Star IP Lawyers, Best Lawyers, and Australasian Lawyer 5 Star Awards, and have been honoured with many awards including Australian Law Awards – IP Partner of the Year, Women in Law Awards – Partner of the Year, Women in Business Law Awards - Patent Lawyer of the Year (Asia Pacific), Most Influential Lawyers (Changemaker), among other awards.