In order to purchase this product, you will be required to complete a simple set of questions (as seen below) to confirm to us that the medicine chosen is correct for your pet and you know how to use these products safely
Virbac India strives to be a front runner in the Indian Animal Health Market by providing a range of products that satisfy the needs of the Veterinarians and Animal owners to maintain good health, improve productivity, prevent and cure diseases in Food-Producing Animals, Companion Animals, Poultry, and Aquaculture.
We offer an array of Virbac products that are designed to help pet parents in providing best care to their four-legged companions. Our aisle of Virbac brand products includes supplies for dogs, cats and horses. Shop Virbac animal health products at the best prices only at VetSupply.
Virbac is known to provide quality products for best animal health. Virbac animal health care and veterinary products are well known around the world for its quality. At Budget Pet Supplies, we offer extensive range of Virbac products that are specially designed for total animal health. Select from the wide range of brand products to get the best deal price and avail added benefits.
Our dedicated team is passionate about pets and will endeavour to keep you informed of the latest and relevant news and information about your pets.Our stock moves fast! - All our products are fresh and have long expiry dates for shipping.
Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd is a specialist animal health company with its core business in sheep and cattle products, veterinary pharmaceuticals and vaccines, a wide range of petcare products for dogs and cats, plus a broad range of products for horses.
Virbac takes pride in its ability to develop and manufacture products in Australia, for Australia. The company has 4 sites in NSW with 3 of these dedicated to manufacturing a wide range of dosage forms from tablets and gels to sterile vaccines and implants.
Now with over 70 stores in South Africa, Agrimark is steadily becoming a favourite one-stop-shop for a wide range of agricultural and lifestyle products. From irrigation systems to gardening equipment, animal feed and pet accessories to high quality tools and a variety of outdoor and camping gear. But we are more than just local retailers offering great deals on quality products. As mens-mense, we also pride ourselves on delivering personal, friendly service to all our customers.
In Australia, CPH is looking forward to over the counter (OTC) sales of low-dose CBD products in Australian Pharmacies. The sale of these products was made possible following a decision from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to down schedule low-dose CBD preparations form Schedule 4 (Prescription Medicine) to Schedule 3 (Pharmacist Only Medicine).
IX. In a communication sent in preparation of oral proceedings the Board reviewed the submissions of the parties and in particular with regard to inventive step pointed out inter alia the necessity to "analyse whether the evidence on file makes it possible to acknowledge the presence of improvements and advantages with respect to the closest prior art" (paragraph 3.3) and the fact that there was "apparently no evidence on file which makes a comparison with the products of D2 possible" (paragraph 3.4).
a) The product of document D2 could be considered as the closest prior art in the absence of any better document in the proceedings disclosing animal medicines comprising benazepril. The differences of the product of claim 1 with respect to the disclosure in D2 were the replacement of the active ingredient with benazepril, which did not appear in the long list of medicaments of D2, and the specific particle structure with the double coating. There were several advantages with respect to the product of D2. Firstly, the particles of D2 were not suitable for masking the taste of a bitter medicaments, such as benazepril, which had to be taken by animals daily and for a long time and therefore required a large degree of acceptance, as they were not unitary in form, did not have a regular coating and were used for a medicaments to be taken only once a month. Document D16' was not suitable to show that the bitterness of benazepril was not an issue, as the quantity of active ingredient used in the tests of D16' was minimal. D19 showed that the acceptance of the claimed product was extremely high being similar to the one of a placebo. A better comparison could not be provided, as a reproduction of the product of D2 which contained a different active ingredient was not reasonable. The stability of the claimed animal medicine was confirmed by the fact that it was an approved commercial product as shown by D23. The problem solved was therefore the provision of a medicament which was taste-masking for benazepril, had high palatability for animals and a good stability. There was no hint in the prior art that the problem could be solved by means of the claimed product. Benazepril was not present in most of the cited documents and, where it was mentioned, as in D1, it was only as a member of a very long list. In this respect it was relevant that previous commercial products containing benazepril were not in the proceedings. Document D3 was also not suitable to lead to lack of inventive step. Firstly, it had a different scope, as it concerned human medicine, and it was evident that the problems related to acceptance of a human medicine were very different from those of an animal medicament. Secondly, it disclosed minipellets to be spread on food and not particles to be embedded in a substrate. Finally, even if the teaching of D2 and D3 were combined, a product according to claim 1 would not be obtained, as neither concerned benazepril. In this respect it was relevant that benazepril was particular problematic, as far as taste-masking was concerned, in view of its bitterness, the necessity of taking a daily dose to treat serious illnesses and the acceptance problem of the previous commercial product. While it was true that the application as filed disclosed a long list of active ingredients, it only exemplified benazepril and both the long list in the original application and the one in D2 were of speculative nature. On that basis the present of an inventive step had to be acknowledged.
2.3 Solid food products according to D2 may be in the form of tablets with a food matrix of vegetable or animal basis (claims 6 and 9; page 4, lines 16 to 18; page 4, line 21 to page 5, line 2). The particles have preferably a diameter between 150 and 500 mym (page 7, lines 4 to 7) and according to the method of generation may have a core containing the pharmaceutical agent in a carrier (e.g. sodium alginate) encapsulated by the inert coating (page 8, line 9 to page 9, line 2). The inert encapsulating material is typically a physiologically compatible polymer, such as ethylcellulose, gelatine and gum arabic (page 8, lines 3 to 5).
2.4 While in the examples anti-worming compounds, such as fenbendazole and praziquantel, are specifically used as pharmaceutical agents (page 6, lines 5 to 10; examples on pages 10 to 13), it is disclosed in D2 that a large range of pharmaceutical agents may be included in the food products, including diuretics and cardiovascular preparations (page 5, lines 18 to 30).
4.2 Document D2 itself discloses that a large range of pharmaceutical agents may be included in the food products disclosed therein and provides a long list of classes of medicaments, including diuretics and cardiovascular preparations (page 5, lines 18 to 30).
6.1 These requests cannot be considered as a reaction to any new situations having arisen at a late stage of the proceedings. In particular they cannot be seen as a reaction to the communication of the Board in which the submissions of the parties were reviewed, consideration on inventive step were made which form part of the common application of the problem-solution approach (e.g. the need to analyse the evidence on file to investigate the presence of improvements or advantages with respect to the closest prior art) and a statement on such evidence was made ("There is apparently no evidence on file which makes a comparison with the products of D2 possible", see point IX, above) which corresponded to the position of the appellant in the statement of grounds. No other possible justification for the late filing has been provided by the respondents. 781b155fdc