Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited v Aventis Pharma SA; Aventis Pharma SA v Cipla Life Sciences (Pty) Ltd

Aventis, the holder of South African Patent No 93/8936 relating to an injectable taxane-based pharmaceutical composition (docetaxel), marketed its product as Taxotere. Cipla sought to import and sell a generic equivalent, Cipla Docetaxel, supplied in two separate vials intended to be mixed before administration. Aventis alleged patent infringement. Cipla challenged the validity of a 2007 amendment to claim 1 of the patent and opposed Aventis’s application for an interim interdict. The Commissioner of Patents dismissed both the amendment challenge and the infringement application, finding the amended claim unclear. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal against the dismissal of the section 51(1) amendment challenge was dismissed with costs. The appeal against the dismissal of the infringement application was upheld, the Commissioner’s order set aside, and an interim interdict granted restraining Cipla from inducing or assisting infringement and from disposing of Cipla Docetaxel and its solvent pending final relief.

The case clarifies the principles governing patent claim amendments, the distinction between claim clarity and specification sufficiency, and confirms that South African law recognises contributory patent infringement through delictual principles. It is a leading authority on pharmaceutical patent enforcement and interim interdicts in patent disputes.