ARTICLE
26 February 2014

Pharmacapsules @ Gowlings: February 21, 2014 - Volume 13, Number 3

GW
Gowling WLG

Contributor

Gowling WLG is an international law firm built on the belief that the best way to serve clients is to be in tune with their world, aligned with their opportunity and ambitious for their success. Our 1,400+ legal professionals and support teams apply in-depth sector expertise to understand and support our clients’ businesses.
In her February 14th decision of "Alcon Canada Inc v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company", Justice Gleason of the Federal Court denied Alcon's application for an order of prohibition.
Canada Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Edited by Jennifer L. Wilkie and Isabel Raasch

In this issue:

  • Prohibition Application re Olopatadine Patent Dismissed for Lack of Sound Prediction
  • Claims Construction for Patent Listing – Does it serve any purpose?

Prohibition Application re Olopatadine Patent Dismissed for Lack of Sound Prediction

By: Alex Gloor

In her February 14th decision of Alcon Canada Inc v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company (2014 FC 149), Justice Gleason of the Federal Court denied Alcon's application for an order of prohibition with respect to its PATADAY® product. PATADAY®, used to treat allergic and inflammatory eye reactions, contains a 0.2% solution of olopatadine. The validity of Canadian Patent 2,447,924 was at issue in this proceeding.

The '924 Patent

The relevant claims of the '924 Patent claimed pharmaceutical compositions for the treatment of allergic or inflammatory disorders of the eye and nose comprising olopatadine and the excipient PVP, where the composition does not contain any of five named "excluded excipients". The two claims at issue in this proceeding (claims 2 and 7) both claimed allowable molecular weight ranges for PVP (5,000-1,600,000), and ranges of allowable olopatadine concentrations in the composition.

Read the full article

Claims Construction for Patent Listing – Does it serve any purpose?

By: Viktor Haramina

On February 17, 2014, the Federal Court dismissed an application by Eli Lilly for judicial review of the Minister of Health's refusal to list Lilly's Canadian Patent No. 2,379,329 in respect of its drug product, TRIFEXIS®. The Federal Court held that it was bound by the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Gilead Sciences Canada Inc v Canada (Ministry of Health), 2012 FCA 254, with respect to the product specificity requirements prescribed by paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The underlying decision indicated that the '329 Patent claimed a formulation comprising only one medicinal ingredient, spinosad, rather than claims for a formulation that contained the two medicinal ingredients present in TRIFEXIS® (spinosad and milbemycin oxime).

Read the full article

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More