Posts Tagged ‘utility’

Dec
25

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

Jul
01

In Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Ratiopharm Inc. (2010 FC 230), the Federal Court (“FC”) denied Sanofi-Aventis Canada’s (Sanofi) application to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (“NOC”) to Ratiopharm Inc. pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“PMNOC Regulations“). The FC held Sanofi’s Canadian Patent No. 2,177,772 was invalid for overbreadth, lack of utility and in any case was not infringed by the use of Ratiopharm’s proposed composition.

Ratiopharm’s NOC application was for irbesartan, a drug for treatment of cardiovascular ailments such as hypertension and heart failure. Canadian Patents 2,177,772 (“’772 patent”) and 2,057,913 had been listed by Sanofi on the patent register in respect of irbesartan pursuant to section 4 of the PMNOC Regulations. Ratiopharm accepted that no NOC would issue prior to expiry of the ’913 patent, so only the ’772 patent remained for consideration. The ’772 patent claims pharmaceutical compositions containing irbesartan, preferably in the form of tablets with a high relative amount of the active ingredient that allowed for a rapid dissolution and release. Continue Reading

Jun
24

In Bauer Hockey Corp. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc. (2010 FC 361), the Federal Court (“FC”) held Easton Sports Canada Inc. (Easton) infringed, and induced others to infringe, plaintiff Bauer’s Canadian Patent No. 2302953 (“the ’953 patent”) claiming an improved skate having a one-piece quarter section. The FC found all skates manufactured by Easton using a claimed “F” pattern were infringing since these skates featured all of the essential elements claimed in the ’953 patent design. Continue Reading

Jan
27

In Lundbeck Canada v. Minister of Health, 2009 FC 1102, the Federal Court of Canada (FC) dismissed Lundbeck’s prohibition application against Ratiopharm in respect of two patents relating to memantine hydrochloride. Canadian patents 2,014,453 (’453 patent) and 2,426,492 (’492 patent) were listed by Lundbeck on the Patent Register under section 4 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 (PMNOC Regulations). The patents relate to memantine, a drug used to treat individuals with Alzheimers. The ’453 patent outlines the mechanism of action for memantine and the ’492 patent suggests a method for combining memantine with other acetylcholine inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) to provide a synergistic effect. Ratiopharm served a Notice of Allegation on Lundbeck alleging that both the ’453 and the ’492 patents were invalid. The FC ruled that Ratiopharm’s allegations of invalidity were justified with respect to both patents. In doing so, the FC employed the tests for anticipation, obviousness, utility and found a lack of good faith prosecution due to the failure to specifically identify adverse material in a disclosed prior art reference. Continue Reading

Categories

Subscription Options

Subscribe via RSS

Previous Posts