The first respondent was the patentee of an invention used as a contraceptive ("the 2004 patent"). The second respondent was licensed to use the invention in South Africa. They were jointly referred to by the court as "Bayer. The appellant ("Pharma") was a local distributor of generic pharmaceuticals. In March 2011, Pharma obtained approval from the Medical Control Council to import and sell an oral contraceptive called Ruby. That product was the generic equivalent of the Yasmin product sold by Bayer under the 2004 patent. Alleging that the sale of Rubyconstituted an infringement of the 2004 patent, Bayer approached the court a quo for an interdict and ancillary relief. Pharma denied that Ruby infringed the patent, or that the 2004 patent was valid, and counterclaimed for its revocation. The court a quo held, however, that the 2004 patent was valid and that Ruby infringed it. That led to the present appeal. The appeal was thus dismissed with costs.