The Constitutional Court ordered the inclusion of the appellant in the group of patients who will receive comprehensive medical treatment against HIV/AIDS by the Ministry of Health, which includes the provision of medicines and relevant analysis, as required by the treating physicians and hospital. The State of Peru is encouraged to view the costs of the provision of medical treatment not as expenditure but as a priority investment. The hospital is obliged to report back to the court every six months.

In this case, a United States district court ruled that successfully defending a patent infringement dispute is not a necessary requirement for a generic manufacturer to benefit from a 180-day exclusivity period. US law provides, under certain circumstances, a 180-day period of exclusivity to reward the first launch of a generic copy of an originator drug.

This case addresses the extent to which an applicant for a process patent needs to demonstrate utility (industrial application) of the process and the resulting product. The Supreme Court held that the practical utility of the compound produced by a chemical process is an essential element in establishing a prima facie case for the patentability of the process.

In this case, the Australian Federal Court addressed the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body, how novelty can be destroyed and what amounts to secondary infringement.

The Canadian Federal Court granted a limited injunction that prevented the defendant from any further marketing activity for an infringing product but allowed the selling of the same infringing product to patients in the absence of an alternative supplier. The decision is important for the treatment of patent holders that do not use their invention (“non-practicing entities”).