As previously reported, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) granted Sanofi and Schering leave to amend their defences to plead the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v Apotex Inc., 2017 SCC 36 (“AstraZeneca”). In the underlying action, Apotex relies on Sanofi-Aventis Canada v Apotex Inc., 2009 FC 676 (“invalidity decision”) as a central element of its novel claims under the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, U.K. Statute of Monopolies and Trade-Marks Act. The invalidity decision found certain claims of Canadian Patent No. 1,341,206 invalid on the basis of the “promise doctrine”, which was subsequently rejected as “unsound” in AstraZeneca. The ONCA concluded that depriving Sanofi and Schering of the opportunity to argue that the invalidity decision is suspect would be “fundamentally unfair”. On January 7, 2019, Apotex applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (docket No. 38471).
Related Publications & Articles
-
Dexlansoprazole formulation patent invalid and not infringed by Apotex
On February 7, 2024, the Federal Court dismissed Takeda’s action under subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations in relation to dexlansoprazole (Takeda’s DEXILANT).Read More -
FCA upholds inducement of infringement findings relating to paliperidone palmitate
On January 12, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed both appeals: Apotex Inc v Janssen Inc, 2024 FCA 9 and Pharmascience Inc v Janssen Inc, 2024 FCA 10.Read More -
Federal Court of Appeal affirms paliperidone palmitate claims are not unpatentable methods of medical treatment
On February 1, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed Pharmascience’s appeal. Per the FCA, whether a claimed dosing regimen is an unpatentable method of medical treatment cannot be based ex...Read More