Drug: YAZ® drospirenone and ethinylestradiol This is an application pursuant to the Patented Medicines
(Notice of Compliance) Regulations. The Court began by noting
that it had issued an Order of prohibition in a proceeding relating
to the same patent with a different generic company, Cobalt. The
parties agreed not to make submissions with respect to obviousness
in light of the Cobalt decision. After construing the asserted claims, the Court found that
Apotex did not infringe the patent. The Court also considered
eligibility for listing on the Patent Register. The Court found
that section 6(5) of the Regulationscan allow for the
early disposition of this issue, but does not prevent the issue
from being raised at the hearing. Accordingly, the Court considered
Apotex' allegation that the patent was not properly listed on
the Patent Register because the medicinal ingredient is in the form
of a clathrate, which is not claimed in the patent. The Court noted
the burden with respect to this allegation lies with Apotex because
it is not an allegation that Bayer must demonstrate was not
justified as it does with allegations pursuant to section 5(1) or
(2) of the Regulations. The Court found that the listing
was not improper. Apotex also alleged that the asserted claims are invalid for
anticipation in light of clinical studies in Europe and the United
States. Bayer submitted evidence with respect to the measures taken
to ensure confidentiality was maintained. The Court found
"that there has been established a "theoretical"
possibility that a tablet could have been kept and analyzed,
therefore the requirements of subsection 28.2(1)(a) of the
PatentAct have been met." However, the Court then
considered that the law allows experimental use in order to bring
an invention to perfection, which does not constitute public use.
The Court found that Bayer took reasonable steps and it is only a
theoretical possibility that some tablets were retained and
analyzed. "This theoretical possibility does not preclude the
fact that the studies were experimental, and of necessity,
conducted by the provision of tablets to members of the public.
Thus these clinical studies are exempted from public use." The
claims of anticipation were found not justified. The application was dismissed. This is a case relating to the drug Viagra. This was an appeal
from an order of the Federal Court which dismissed an appeal from
an order of a Prothonotary. The Prothonotary had struck portions of
Teva's Statement of Claim seeking punitive and exemplary
damages, as well as quantification of Pfizer's profits,
pursuant to an action under section 8 of the NOC
Regulations. The issue on this appeal was whether a claim for punitive and
exemplary damages may be sustained under section 8 of the NOC
Regulations. The Court of Appeal held that such a claim cannot
be sustained, for similar reasons as those expressed by the Federal
Court. The Court of Appeal added, however, that while punitive
damages are not limited to certain categories of claims (i.e. they
have been found to be available in all types of cases, notably in
patent infringement cases), punitive and exemplary damages cannot
be available where the statutory regime underlying the claim
explicitly or implicitly precludes them. This is the case under the
NOC Regulations, which set out a comprehensive scheme with
respect to compensation resulting from the operation of the
statutory stay it provides for. The Court of Appeal noted that
section 8 of the NOC Regulations provides that the first
person is liable for "any loss suffered" during the
period; this wording allows compensation for losses actually
incurred, not other types of relief, such as disgorgement of
profits or punitive damages. Teva also raised the application of subsection 8(5) of the
NOC Regulations as a new justification for seeking
punitive damages. The Court of Appeal clarified that this provision
relates to the assessment of the losses suffered by the generic
company, and that it allows the court to adjust the damages taking
into account the conduct of the parties with respect to the
prosecution of the prohibition application. However, it was held
that subsection 8(5) cannot sustain a claim for punitive damages
since, by their nature, punitive damages are not
"compensation". Teva's application was therefore dismissed. infringing medicine This decision relates to the crafting of a final injunction for
the sale of STELARA following a finding of infringement. In an
earlier trial decision reported as 2014 FC 55, Janssen was found to be infringing
AbbVie's Canadian Patent No. 2,365,281 by selling in Canada its
product known as STELARA. (Currently under appeal, docket A-95-14) The Court of Appeal earlier refused
to grant a stay of the hearing of arguments on this injunction
pending the outcome of the appeal, due to a lack of finding of
irreparable harm (2014 FCA 112, summarized
here). The Court refused to grant an injunction stopping all sales of
STELARA, as existing patients may continue to receive the medicine.
New patients may also be able to take the medicine, if the
physician determines it is necessary to treat the patient. However,
Janssen is barred from using sales representatives to promote the
use of their product to doctors. Janssen was also prohibited from
conducting Phase IV trials, unless they are required by law. The
Court refused to stay the injunction pending the appeal. This was an appeal by the Defendants of the order of a
Prothonotary granting the Plaintiffs' request for special
management of this action, an action in which the Plaintiffs claim,
among other things, copyright infringement and passing off. At the
time of the hearing of this motion, the parties were at the close
of the pleadings stage of the action. The Plaintiffs filed a letter with the Federal Court requesting
that the action be case managed for essentially two reasons: (1) to
obtain a trial date at the earliest availability and avoid further
delay; and The Court could see no ground upon which it could find that the
exercise of discretion by the Prothonotary was clearly wrong. What
remained was the issue of whether the decision to issue the order
was based upon a wrong principle. The Court denied the
Defendants' argument that it was denied natural justice, since
no rights were being disposed of. While the Court conceded that the
Prothonotary's decision is "open to criticism that he
acted precipitously" and that he "could have waited"
to issue the order, the Court did not accept the argument that the
Prothonotary was wrong in concluding that case management was appropriate in
this case. It was a reasonable decision. While the Defendants
argued that case management would be prejudicial to their interests
(i.e. they would be foreclosed from bringing a motion for summary
judgment, based on a reading of Rule 213(1) of the Federal
Court Rules (the "Rules"), the draft
Scheduling Order was crafted so as to limit the application and
effect of Rule 213. In the Court's view, this was a complete
answer to the Defendants' claim that they would suffer
prejudice, since it is also consistent with the general principle
in Rule 3 of the Rules. The Court also added that there is
no requirement to show some form of delay by the parties prior to
the issuance of such an order. In fact, it was noted that the
relevant Practice Notice (May 2009) states that it should be made
as early as possible. Therefore, the Defendants' appeal was
dismissed. The Plaintiffs sought and were awarded solicitor and client
costs based on the fact that this appeal should not have been
brought. The Court held that a less costly resolution could have
been sought by a motion in writing to the Prothonotary to
reconsider his Order. Joint ownership in copyright ordered on basis of a
memorandum assigning rights The applicant moved under subsection 57(4) of the Copyright
Act to correct the name of the holder of three copyright
certificates, by naming the Applicant as the holder. The
certificates are currently in the name of a programmer who either
worked for or with the applicant. The main issue was whether the
works were created during the course of employment, or whether they
were partners. The Court found that the applicant established an interest in
the certificates. However, subsection 13(3) of the Copyright
Act, which vests copyright in the employer, was found not to
apply due to a memorandum between the two parties. The memorandum
provides 80% ownership to the applicant, 20% to the respondent. In
the result, the Court ordered that the registration certificates
reflect joint ownership over the works. CIPO has released its Annual Report 2012-2013: A Year of
Discovery. The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
NOC Cases
Clinical Studies Exempted from Public Use in Allegation of
Anticipation
Bayer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2014 FC
436
Patent Cases
Claim Seeking Punitive and Exemplary Damages Denied as Part of
Section 8 Proceeding
TevaCanada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc.,
2014 FCA 138
Final injunction permits existing patients to continue to
receive
AbbVie Corporation v. Janssen Inc., 2014
FC 489
Drug: ustekinumab (STELARA®)Copyright Cases
Decision Granting Request for Case Management of IP Litigation
Upheld on Appeal
The Grief Recovery Institute, LLC v. 1668246
Ontario Inc., 2012 FC 888
(2) to have in place a scheduling order, which will streamline all
pre-trial matters. The Defendants did not consent on the ground
that the request was premature. With respect to the
Prothonotary's decision granting the Plaintiff's initial
request, the Defendants submitted that it should be set aside
because: (i) they did not consent; (ii) they were not permitted to
be heard, which constituted a denial of natural justice; (iii) the
request for case management was treated as an ex parte
motion without any evidence filed; (iv) it was an error to grant
the Plaintiff's order since the action is not complex
litigation; and (v) the Prothonotary erred in law by automatically
granting case management on request.
Kennedy v. Ruminski, 2014 FC 526Industry News