Teva Canada Innovation v. Pharmascience Inc., 2020 FC 1158 (Glatiramer*)
Justice Kane - 2021-01-06
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
These proceedings involve two patent infringement actions [the Action] pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 [the Regulations]. ... Pharmascience asserts the Gillette defence in response to Teva’s allegations of infringement. Pharmascience argues that it does not infringe the ‘437 Patent because its Glatect product merely practices the teachings of the prior art. Pharmascience submits that the claims of the ‘437 Patent include RRMS patients, and the prior art includes that glatiramer acetate was well known to be an effective treatment for RRMS. ... Pharmascience alternatively submits that if the ‘802 Patent is not obvious based on the prior art, then Teva has neither demonstrated utility nor soundly predicted utility. Teva notes that there are no results set out in the ‘802 Patent, but only a proposal for a study of the expected results. ... For the reasons that follow, I find that the ‘437 Patent is not anticipated ... However, I find that the ‘437 Patent is obvious. I find that the ‘802 Patent is valid; it is not obvious and it soundly predicted its utility. With respect to infringement, if Pharmascience proceeds to market Glatect 40 mg in accordance with its proposed SNDS, it will infringe the ‘802 Patent.
Decision relates to:
- T-2182-18 - TEVA CANADA INNOVATION ET AL. v. PHARMASCIENCE ET AL.
- T-2183-18 - TEVA CANADA INNOVATION AND OTHERS v. PHARMASCIENCE INC. AND OTHERS