Apotex Inc. v. Allergan Inc. et al., 2015 FCA 137 (Bimatoprost*)
Justice Dawson; Justice Webb; Justice Boivin - 2015-06-03
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
At the lower court (see 2014 FC 567), the application judge had held that Apotex’ allegations of obviousness, lack of utility and anticipation were not justified and had issued a prohibition order. On obviousness and anticipation, the Federal Court of Appeal found there was no reviewable error. On utility, the FCA said, "the factual basis, line of reasoning and level of disclosure required by the doctrine of sound prediction are to be assessed as a function of both the knowledge that the skilled person would have to base that prediction on and what the skilled person would understand as a logical line of reasoning leading to the utility of the invention. Those elements of the doctrine of sound prediction that would be self-evident to the skilled person need not be explicitly disclosed in the patent." Since the application judge had found that the line of reasoning would, to the skilled reader, flow from the data disclosed, the Appeal was dismissed.
Decision relates to:
- A-299-14 - APOTEX INC. v. ALLERGAN INC. ET AL which is an appeal from 2014 FC 567 in T-1151-12