In the early stages of patent infringement proceedings, each of the respondents (defendants) argued that Scidera had not put its case sufficiently clearly to the court in its pleadings (Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim) and that it should be struck out and the case dismissed.
The patent in suit (AU2010202253) relates to a method to identify a trait of a bovine subject from a nucleic acid sample, using at least three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
Rofe J disagreed, stated that the Amended Statement of Claim had dealt with any deficiencies in the original Statement of Claim and cited Justice Murphy in Gall v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Ltd (No 2) (2021) 391 ALR 675 in stating that “in modern times courts have often taken a “less strict approach” to the application of pleadings principles, and have preferred to use pre-trial disclosure of evidence and exchange of submissions and interventionist case management techniques to address some of the difficulties sometimes associated with pleadings.”
Her Honour made it clear that the parties to the proceeding are sophisticated litigants with legal advisers experienced in patent litigation and that it would be difficult to see how they could say they were not sufficiently apprised of the case that is to be put against each of them for the purposes of preparing their respective defences.
Read more at: Scidera, Inc. v Meat and Livestock Australia Limited [2025] FCA 30