In Apotex v Janssen (2024 FCA 9) and Pharmascience v Janssen (2024 FCA 10), the Federal Court of Appeal held that Apotex and Pharmascience would induce patent infringement by recommending that their respective generic products be sold and used according to the dosing regimen claimed in Janssen’s 335 Patent. Apotex Inc. v. Janssen Inc. – […]
In Galderma’s long-running dispute with the PMPRB, the Federal Court (per Fothergill J.) recently upheld the PMPRB’s decision that Galderma’s patent claiming the use of a 0.3% adapalene formulation “pertained” to its DIFFERIN (0.1% adapalene) product. Galderma Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) This is the most recent chapter in a
The Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing) has held that it is an abuse of process for second persons under the PMNOC Regulations to serve more than one Notice of Allegation (“NOA”) relating to the same patent and drug product. Janssen v. Apotex 2023 FCA 253 Facts: Janssen markets paliperidone palmitate suspension in prefilled
Multiple Notices of Allegation are Abusive Read More »
In this Federal Court decision (per Pentney J.), the plaintiffs Allergan and AbbVie (“Allergan”) were successful in upholding the validity of their 691 Patent. The defendant (“Juno”) conceded that its proposed generic drug product would infringe the 691 Patent. The main issues before the Court were obviousness and sufficiency. Allergan v Juno, 2023 FC 1686
Federal Court Determines the Inventive Concept of an Improved Drug Formulation Read More »
Co-written with Dino Clarizio This is the third of a series of three posts discussing some of the issues addressed by the trial judge (McVeigh J.) in NCS v Kobold, 2023 FC 1486. The three issues we discuss are those that arise less frequently in patent cases. They are: Topic 1: Priority Date (Post #1)Topic
Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part III Read More »
Co-written with Dino Clarizio This is the second of a series of three posts discussing some of the issues addressed by the trial judge (McVeigh J.) in NCS v Kobold, 2023 FC 1486. The three issues we discuss are those that arise less frequently in patent cases. They are: Topic 1: Priority Dates (Post #1)Topic
Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part II Read More »
Co-written with Dino Clarizio In a complex patent infringement action involving five NCS patents and one Kobold patent relating to tools and sleeves used in oil well drilling, the Federal Court (per McVeigh J.) held that NCS’s patents were invalid and not infringed, and that Kobold’s patent was valid and infringed by NCS. As a
Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part I Read More »
Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing) holds that PMNOC Regulations do not allow a first person to amend an existing patent list to create a new patent linkage. Janssen Inc. v. Canada (Health) – Federal Court of Appeal (fca-caf.ca) Janssen Inc. v. Canada (Health) – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) This decision concerns the arcane timing
FCA Reaffirms Strict Rules for Patent Lists Under the PMNOC Regulations Read More »
Federal Court (per McHaffie J.) dismisses motion to bifurcate a patent infringement action due to insufficient evidence. Bessette v. British Columbia – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) In Canada, the default process for patent infringement actions is that all issues are heard and decided together in a single trial. However, the Federal Court has a discretionary power
Magnitude of Savings as a Factor on Bifurcation Motions Read More »
The Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing for the Court) recently confirmed the threshold for establishing a sound prediction of utility. Sandoz v Janssen 2023 FCA 221 Canadian patent law requires that, to prevent the filing of patent applications based on speculation, utility must be either demonstrated or the requirements for a sound prediction
Sandoz v. Janssen 2023 FCA 221: Threshold for Sound Prediction Read More »
