Markwell Clarizio LLP

intellectual property

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How”

In Pharmascience v Janssen, the Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing for the Court) held that the claims in Janssen’s patent to a dosing regimen are not prohibited as a method of medical treatment. Pharmascience v Janssen, 2024 FCA 23   The Prohibition Against Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment The patentability of methods of […]

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How” Read More »

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs

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. –

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs Read More »

Federal Court Determines the Inventive Concept of an Improved Drug Formulation

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 »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part II

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 »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part I

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 »

Sandoz v. Janssen 2023 FCA 221: Threshold for Sound Prediction

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 »