Rx IP Update

Federal Court finds PLAVIX patent invalid

On December 6, 2011, Justice Boivin of the Federal Court held that Apotex infringed the patent that claims clopidrogel bisulfate (sanofi-aventis's PLAVIX) but that the patent was invalid: Apotex Inc. v. sanofi-aventis, 2011 FC 1486, appeal pending.

Read more »

 

Court of Appeal finds Merck liable under 1998 version of section 8 regarding lovastatin and remits case back to Trial Judge

On December 19, 2011, the Court of Appeal reversed the Trial Judge's finding that the 1993 version of section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations ("Regulations") applied to Apotex's claim against Merck relating to a prohibition proceeding regarding lovastatin (Merck's MEVACOR) (Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 2011 FCA 364, rev'g 2010 FC 1264).

Read more »

 

Supreme Court of Canada news

Ratiopharm denied leave to appeal decision refusing to set aside Order of prohibition following declaration of invalidity. The Supreme Court has dismissed ratiopharm's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's decision refusing to set aside a 2006 Order of prohibition against ratiopharm for amlodipine besylate (Pfizer's NORVASC). The relevant patent had been declared invalid in an impeachment action. Ratiopharm sought to set aside a 2006 Order of prohibition so that it would be entitled to compensation pursuant to section 8 of the Regulations. The Court of Appeal held that the declaration of invalidity was not a new matter that would warrant setting aside the 2006 Order, and that it could not be said that the 2006 Order was induced by and resulted from misrepresentation. The Supreme Court had previously denied ratiopharm's application for leave to appeal the 2006 Order (SCC Case No. 31607).

Ratiopharm Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. (SCC Case No. 34464).
Federal Court of Appeal decision — 2011 FCA 215.

Eli Lilly denied leave to appeal holding of invalidity of atomoxetine use patent. As reported in the August 2011 issue of Rx IP Update, the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the Federal Court decision that the patent claiming the use of atomoxetine (Eli Lilly's STRATTERA) to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was invalid on the bases of inutility and lack of sound prediction. The Supreme Court has dismissed Eli Lilly's application for leave to appeal.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Canada Limited (SCC Case No. 34396).
Federal Court of Appeal decision — 2011 FCA 220.
Federal Court decision — 2010 FC 915.

 

Patented Medicine Prices Review Board news

NPDUIS releases report on wholesale up-charge policies of Canada's public drug plans. In December 2011, the National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System ("NPDUIS") released a new analytical report regarding wholesale up-charge policies across the NPDUIS participating jurisdictions to better understand the instruments available in controlling related costs.

Report.

 

Recent Court decisions

Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations

Court of Appeal affirms unavailability of unjust enrichment claim in section 8 action. On December 16, 2011, the Court of Appeal held that Apotex could not pursue unjust enrichment claims in actions relating to raloxifene (Eli Lilly's EVISTA) and pantoprazole (Nycomed's PANTALOC) as no cause of action independent of the operation of section 8 was alleged.

Apotex Inc. and Eli Lilly Canada Inc., December 16, 2011.
Federal Court of Appeal decision — 2011 FCA 358.

Other decisions

Takeda denied data protection for DEXILANT. On December 9, 2011, the Federal Court upheld the Minister of Health's decision that Takeda was not entitled to data protection for DEXILANT (dexlansoprazole) as it is an enantiomer of the previously approved racemate lansoprazole (currently marketed as PREVACID). The Court also did not find that there was any breach of the duty of fairness owed to Takeda in refusing to consider the data submitted. Takeda has appealed.

Takeda v. Canada (Health), December 9, 2011.
Federal Court decision — 2011 FC 1444.

Court of Appeal affirms CGPA's lack of standing to challenge data protection. On December 15, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of the Federal Court, which held that the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association ("CGPA") does not have standing to challenge data protection for the GlaxoSmithKline product AVAMYS (fluticasone furoate). The Court affirmed that the CGPA is not directly affected by the Minister's decision not to remove the drug from the Register of Innovative Drugs as CGPA does not manufacture generic drugs, submit drug submissions, obtain notices of compliance, or sell drugs in Canada. The Court also noted that none of the CGPA members had filed a drug submission for the drug or expressed any interest to manufacture the drug. The Court further affirmed that the CGPA lacks public interest standing.

Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association v. The Minister of Health, December 15, 2011.
Federal Court of Appeal decision — 2011 FCA 357.
Federal Court decision — 2011 FC 465.

Court of Appeal affirms infringement by Apotex regarding lovastatin. On December 19, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Judge's finding of infringement of certain batches of lovastatin (which is marketed by Merck as MEVACOR) by Apotex and Apotex Fermentation.

Merck & Co Inc. v. Apotex Inc., December 19, 2011.
Federal Court of Appeal decision — 2011 FCA 363.
Federal Court decision — 2010 FC 1265.

Regulations prohibiting private label generic drugs found valid. In February 2011, the Ontario Divisional Court held that certain provisions of the Regulations made under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act, which effectively prohibited the sale of private label generic drugs in the public and private markets in Ontario, are invalid. On December 23, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court decision and held that the impugned Regulations are intra vires and remain in full force and effect. The Court of Appeal did not accept the regulation/prohibition dichotomy articulated by the Divisional Court and noted that the Regulations are regulation, not prohibition, as they do not preclude the pharmacies from engaging in the purchase and sale of drugs in Ontario as long as they do so in accordance with the legislative and regulatory scheme. The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in overemphasizing the effect of the Regulations on profits by manufacturers and pharmacies and underemphasizing the potential of the Regulations to influence market dynamics, incentives and drug costs in the long term. The Court of Appeal also found that the Divisional Court failed to recognize that the regulatory regime was intended not only to reduce drug costs to consumers but to ensure that pharmacists were compensated as professional service providers and not from profit in the dispensing of drugs. It held that it was not for the Court to second-guess the Ontario government. It could be reasonably concluded that private-label generics could reduce competition in ways that would adversely affect long-term pricing. Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the Regulations are not an improper restraint on trade and they did not discriminate against the pharmacies.

Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), December 23, 2011.
Ontario Court of Appeal decision — 2011 ONCA 830.
Divisional Court decision — 2011 ONSC 615.

 

New Court proceedings

Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations

Medicine:

voriconazole (VFEND)

Applicants:

Pfizer Canada Inc and Pfizer Inc

Respondents:

Teva Canada Limited and The Minister of Health

Date Commenced:

December 9, 2011

Court File No.:

T-1988-11

Comment:

Application for Order of prohibition until expiry of Patents Nos. 1,341,325 and 2,295,035. Teva alleges invalidity and non-infringement.

 

Medicine:

ethinyl estradiol (SEASONALE)

Applicant:

Teva Women's Health Inc

Respondents:

The Minister of Health and Famy Care Limited

Date Commenced:

December 12, 2011

Court File No.:

T-1996-11

Comment:

Application for Order of prohibition until expiry of Patent No. 2,256,977. Famy Care alleges invalidity and non-infringement.

Other proceedings

Applicant:

Novartis Consumer Health Canada Inc

Respondents:

Health Canada and The Minister of Health

Date Commenced:

December 2, 2011

Court File No.:

T-1934-11

Comment:

Application for judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision to disclose third party information belonging to Novartis pursuant to a request under the Access to Information Act.

 

Medicine:

paclitaxel

Plaintiff:

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Defendant:

Biolyse Pharma Corporation

Date Commenced:

December 9, 2011

Court File No.:

T-1997-11

Comment:

Action for damages ($132,600) for failure to pay the submission and processing fees for Biolyse's paclitaxel new drug submission.

 

Medicine:

levofloxacin (LEVAQUIN)

Plaintiffs:

Janssen-Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc and OMJ Pharmaceuticals Inc

Defendants:

Teva Canada Limited and Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited

Date Commenced:

December 19, 2011

Court File No.:

T-2056-11

Comment:

Action for a declaration that claim 4 of Patent No. 1,304,080 has been infringed by Teva.

 

Medicine:

finasteride (PROPECIA)

Plaintiff:

Pharmascience Inc

Defendants:

Merck Canada Inc and Schering-Plough Canada Inc

Date Commenced:

December 19, 2011

Court File No.:

T-2059-11

Comment:

Action for damages pursuant to section 8 of the Regulations.

 

 
To check the status of Federal Court cases, please click here.

 

RANKINGS AND RECOGNITIONS

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh achieves top ranking in The Lexpert/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada
Read more »

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh recognized in the LEXPERT® Guide to the Leading US/Canada Cross-border Litigation Lawyers in Canada, 2011 edition
Read more »

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh tops the rankings in Who's Who Legal: Canada 2011
Read more »

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh recognized as a leading firm in the 2011 edition of the PLC Cross-border Life Sciences Handbook
Read more »

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh chosen by Managing Intellectual Property as Canada's IP Firm of the Year, Trademark Firm of the Year, and recognized for success with the award for Canadian Case of the Year
Read more »

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh tops the rankings in The Best Lawyers in Canada®
Read more »

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh tops the rankings in Canadian IP law in the 2011 edition of Chambers GlobalThe World's Leading Lawyers for Business
Read more »

Firm recognized in The International Who's Who of Life Sciences Lawyers 2011
Read more »

Smart & Biggar/
Fetherstonhaugh recognized in Managing Intellectual Property's 2011 World IP Survey in the top tier of Canadian patent, trademark and copyright firms
Read more »

For more information or to request a copy of any decision, pleading or legislation, please contact:

DISCLAIMER

The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and regulatory law of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. The contents of this newsletter are informational only and do not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly. To join the Rx IP Update mailing list, be removed from the mailing list or make changes to contact information, please send an e-mail to rxip.update@smart-biggar.ca.

Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh

Ottawa   /   Toronto   /   Montreal   /   Vancouver

smart-biggar.ca