Posts from ‘Canada: Patents’
In Rivett v. Monsanto Canada Inc. (2010 FCA 207), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) unanimously allowed Rivett’s and Janssens’ (Appellants) appeals, in part, from their Federal Court (“FC”) decisions, 2009 FC 317 and 2009 FC 318 respectively. The FCA held the FC had erred in calculating Monsanto Canada Inc.’s (Monsanto) award of profits when applying the differential profit approach. Monsanto cross-appealed on several grounds, including the FC’s choice to apply the differential profit approach in calculating an award of profits, and the use of conventional soybeans as a comparator. The FCA dismissed Monsanto’s arguments. Continue Reading
In Novo Nordisk Canada Inc. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Court (“FC”) dismissed Novo Nordisk Canada Inc.’s (“Novo”) application for an order to prohibit the Minister of Health (“Minister”) from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Cobalt”) until the expiration of Canadian Patent No. 2,111,851 (“the ’851 patent”) for a compound named repaglinide useful for type 2 diabetes treatment. The FC concluded that one of Cobalt’s allegations of invalidity is justified. Continue Reading
In Novopharm Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company (2010 FC 915), the Federal Court of Canada (“Federal Court”) considered allegations raised by Novopharm Ltd. (“Novopharm”) that Eli Lilly and Company’s (“Eli Lilly”) Canadian Patent No. 2,209,735 (“’735 patent”) was invalid and void under S. 60(1) of the Patent Act for being obvious, anticipated, an improper selection patent and lacking utility. The ‘735 patent claimed the new use of atomoxetine for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The Federal Court dismissed the claims for obviousness, anticipation and improper selection patent, but held the ‘735 patent invalid and void for lack of utility.
Background
Atomoxetine was originally studied by Eli Lilly as a possible treatment for depression as early as 1979, however, subsequent clinical trials failed to establish atomoxetine’s efficacy and in 1991, research for this indication was terminated. By the end of 1994, Eli Lilly and the Massachusetts General Hospital had an agreement to jointly sponsor a clinical trial of atomoxetine as a treatment for ADHD, in part because of its recognized characteristic as a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI). Continue Reading
In Pfizer Ltd. v. Ratiopharm Inc. (2010 FCA 204), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) upheld a Federal Court decision (2009 FC 711) holding Pfizer’s Canadian Patent No. 1,321,393 (“’393 patent”) invalid for obviousness.
Amlodipine is a calcium channel blocker, its pharmaceutically acceptable besylate salt is marketed under the tradename NORVASC and used to treat high blood pressure. During its development Pfizer tested seven salts through the accepted process of salt screening. The Federal Court noted only certain salts were selected for further testing and “there was no effort to test all possible salts.” The ’393 patent was a selection from a previous European patent disclosing a broad class of amlodipine compounds. Claim 11 of the ’393 patent claimed the besylate amlodipine compound and promised it to be particularly suitable for preparation of amlodipine.
Subscription Options
