23 October 2026
Von Seidels has represented Unicirc (Pty) Ltd in two significant legal matters concerning circumcision devices in South Africa, resulting in the revocation of a patent held by CircumQ IP (RF) (Pty) Ltd and the setting aside of a decision to award a national tender for the provision of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) devices to CircumQ.
Together, these matters highlight important issues relating to inventorship, patent validity and public procurement in the context of devices used in VMMC services.
Patent Court Revokes CircumQ Patent
Before the Commissioner of Patents, Unicirc sought the revocation of CircumQ’s patent directed to a circumcision device. The application was based on allegations that the patent had been granted in fraud of the rights of a person under or through whom Unicirc claimed, or alternatively, that CircumQ was not entitled to apply for the patent.
At the centre of the dispute was the identification of the inventors. CircumQ’s patent named a single inventor, a former collaborator of Unicirc who had previously worked with the company on the development of circumcision devices. Unicirc argued that two additional individuals associated with the company had also contributed to the invention and should have been named as co-inventors.
The Court found that the two individuals had contributed, at least in part, to the invention and should have been identified as co-inventors. Accordingly, the Court revoked the patent in terms of section 61(1)(a) read with 27(1) of the South African Patents Act, 57 of 1978.
CircumQ did not seek leave to appeal the decision.
High Court Declares Decision to Award Tender Unlawful and Invalid
In separate proceedings, Von Seidels acted for Unicirc in a review application before the Pretoria High Court challenging the decision to award a national tender to CircumQ for the provision and procurement of circumcision devices for use in VMMC services. The National Treasury opposed this application, while CircumQ did not.
The application was brought in the public interest, with the aim of ensuring that only devices proven to be safe are used in circumcision procedures.
The Court found the decision to award the tender to CircumQ to be unlawful and invalid. The National Treasury did not seek leave to appeal the order.
Following this order, the National Treasury nevertheless extended the tender contract for a further seven months. Unicirc subsequently approached the High Court on an urgent basis to review and set aside the extension.
While the National Treasury did not oppose the urgent application, CircumQ opposed it. The matter was heard on 18 September 2026, and the Court granted the order sought by Unicirc, setting aside the tender contract extension with costs. CircumQ has brought an application for leave to appeal this decision, which application is currently pending.
Protecting Innovation and Public Interest
These two matters demonstrate the importance of protecting legitimate inventorship rights and ensuring that public procurement decisions are subject to appropriate legal scrutiny.
For Unicirc, the outcomes represent significant steps in its efforts to protect its interests in the development of circumcision devices and to challenge procurement decisions affecting their use in public healthcare services.
Von Seidels is pleased to have represented Unicirc in these proceedings, which address important questions at the intersection of intellectual property rights, public procurement and public health.
