Posts Tagged ‘utility’

FC interprets desired result claim language as unfulfilled promise in invalidating formulation patent for overbreadth and lack of utility

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. (more...)

FC Holds Ice Skate Designer Infringed by inducement and procurement through Manufacturering partner unaware of patent

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. (more...)

FC holds failure to identify adverse prior art in disclosed reference violates duty of good faith; invalidates Alzheimers treatment for anticipation, obviousness, and utility

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. (more...)

FC Goes Beyond Specification to Assess Utility and Introduces Deception by Inference into s. 53 of Patent Act

In Ratiopharm Inc. v. Pfizer Limited (2009 FC 711), the Federal Court of Canada (FC) granted a declaration that Canadian Patent 1,321,393 (‘393 Patent) is invalid pursuant to s.60(1) of the Patent Act. The Court accepted all five grounds of invalidity put forward by the generic challenger. In invalidating the ‘393 Patent, the FC reviewed evidence beyond the patent specification to assess the level of utility specifically promised in the disclosure. The FC also indicated that “wilfully mislead”, under s.53 of the Patent Act, could be established by inference. Ratiopharm brought this action after the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) (2006 FCA 214) rejected similar challenges in litigation under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. (more...)