On the 25th of February 2025, a local pharmaceutical company, called Eurolab, won a patent dispute against two foreign entities: the University of California and Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd. The dispute centered on a patent for what has been referred to as a life-saving cancer drug. 

The legal dispute commenced last year when the two foreign entities approached the Court of the Commissioner of Patents with an application for an interdict to restrain Eurolab and Dis-Chem from infringing their South African patent. Specifically, they sought to halt the sales and marketing of Eurolab's generic medicine, Enzutrix, approved for treating certain cancers. 

Neither Eurolab nor Dis-Chem seriously disputed that the marketing and selling of their product, constituted an act of infringement of the patent. However, they justified their actions by claiming that the patent is invalid on two grounds, namely: (i) that the patentee was not a person entitled to apply for the patent; and (ii) that there had been a material misrepresentation regarding the priority date in applying for the patent.  

After thoroughly considering the relevant requirements for a South African patent to be valid, the Court ruled that the patent was invalid, dismissing the foreign entities' application for an interdict. Consequently, Eurolab is now permitted to continue supplying Enzutrix to consumers in South Africa. 

From an intellectual property perspective, this case underscores two crucial lessons: first, meticulous adherence to all formal patent application requirements is paramount; and second, conducting thorough intellectual property due diligence before launching a new product in a market is essential.