Tag archives: Obviousness

Federal Court of Appeal upholds one of the last prohibition orders under the old PM(NOC) Regulations

The Federal Court of Appeal has affirmed one of the last judgments granting a prohibition order under subsection 6(1) of the pre-September 2017 Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the PM(NOC) Regulations). The Court of Appeal upheld the prohibition order despite a decision in a subsequent action under the amended PM(NOC) Regulations finding that the same patent was invalid.

Background

ZYTIGA® (abiraterone acetate or AA) is a drug marketed in Canada by Janssen Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., and BTG International Ltd. (collectively, Janssen) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Canadian Patent No. 2,662,422 (the 422 Patent) … Continue Reading

Two PM(NOC) Actions Dismissed After Common Trial on Validity of Treatment Regimen Patent

The Federal Court has dismissed two infringement actions brought against defendants under subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), following a common trial on the validity of Canadian Patent No. 2,562,277 (277 Patent). The Court found that all the asserted claims – to uses for treating multiple sclerosis (MS) – were obvious and that some were anticipated. This is the third decision on the merits of an action under the Regulations since they were amended in September 2017. We previously reported on the first and second trial judgments.

The actions. Continue Reading

FCA Confirms Entirety of Inventors’ Conduct is Relevant in Obviousness Analysis and Upholds Inventiveness of Crystal Form Patent

The Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) upheld the validity of Canadian Patent 2,436,668 (“668 Patent”) which covers Form I ODV succinate (marketed as PRISTIQ) in two separate appeals by Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) and Teva Canada Ltd (“Teva”), finding that the claims were novel and inventive.

Obviousness

The FCA began be reiterating key points of the obviousness analysis:

  • The Sanofi test is flexible and expansive and can include consideration of the invention story as a whole;
  • The “obvious to try” test is only one part of the obviousness analysis and does not displace
Continue Reading
LexBlog