Stephen is an intellectual property lawyer who acts for and advises clients across a range of industries, including biotechnology, mechanical engineering, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines. Stephen specialises in life sciences patent infringement and revocation proceedings before the Federal Court and High Court of Australia, as well as disputes in the Australian Patent Office.
Stephen also advises on IP transactions, therapeutic goods regulation, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In addition to his legal qualifications, Stephen holds a degree in chemistry, for which he was awarded first class honours and the university medal.
Acting for Idenix in proceedings brought by Gilead in the Federal Court (and on appeal to the Full Court and special leave application to the High Court) for revocation of a patent relating to the blockbuster nucleoside analogue prodrug sofosbuvir, together with a cross claim for infringement.
Acting for Myriad Genetics in proceedings brought by Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy in the Federal Court (and on appeal to the Full Court and subsequently the High Court) for revocation of a patent to isolated nucleic acids relating to the breast cancer gene BRCA1. This was the first occasion on which the High Court was called to rule on the patentability of isolated nucleic acids.
Acting for Sanofi in patent infringement and revocation proceedings on appeal before the High Court regarding a patent to the use of leflunomide in the treatment of psoriasis. This was the first occasion on which the High Court was called to rule on the patentability of methods of medical treatment of human beings.
Acting for Sanofi in oppositions in the Australian Patent Office regarding Amgen’s patent applications to anti-PCSK9 antibodies.
Acting for ToolGen in an opposition in the Australian Patent Office regarding ToolGen’s patent application relating to the revolutionary CRISPR gene editing technology.
Patent Term Extensions – For the last time (we hope): first means first, no matter whose product it is
The Federal Court have made it clear an application for a PTE may only be based on the first goods included on the ARTG.
F45’s methods not fit enough for patentability
F45 commenced infringement proceedings against competitor BFT, four of BFT’s franchisees and one of BFT’s directors.