Teva Canada Limited v. Janssen Inc.

Teva Canada Limited v. Janssen Inc.

Claims in issue of the 936 Patent (claims 37 and 69) are invalid for obviousness; claims in issue of the 146 Patent (claims 30, 45, 46, 81-84) are invalid for obviousness; the asserted claims of the 706 Patent are not infringed by the manufacturing processes for Teva‑bortezomib or Act‑bortezomib; accordingly Teva is entitled to s.8 compensation and the counterclaim is dismissed.

Citation
2018 FC 754
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Teva Canada Limited; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Janssen Inc.; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Cilag GmbH International; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Cilag AG; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Janssen Pharmaceutica NV; Patentee Added Pursuant to S.55(3) of the Patent Act: The United States of America represented by the Department of Health and Human Services
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
S.8 Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Compensation Action; Counterclaim for Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment (federal Court Decision on Validity, Infringement and Entitlement to Compensation)
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Claim Construction, Infringement, Selection Patents, Regulatory NOC S.8 Compensation
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Pharmaceutical Regulation Civil Litigation Obviousness Claim Construction Infringement Selection Patents +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teva Canada Limited

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Janssen Inc.

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Cilag GmbH International

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Cilag AG

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Janssen Pharmaceutica NV

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

The United States of America represented by the Department of Health and Human Services

Patentee Added Pursuant to S.55(3) of the Patent Act

Procedural Posture

S.8 Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Compensation Action; Counterclaim for Patent Infringement / Trial Judgment (federal Court Decision on Validity, Infringement and Entitlement to Compensation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 37 and 69 of Canadian Patent No. 2,203,936 are obvious
  2. 2 Inventive concept and obviousness of claims 30,45,46 and 81-84 of Canadian Patent No. 2,435,146
  3. 3 Construction of claims and infringement of Canadian Patent No. 2,738,706

Ratio Decidendi

Claims in issue of the 936 Patent (claims 37 and 69) are invalid for obviousness; claims in issue of the 146 Patent (claims 30, 45, 46, 81-84) are invalid for obviousness; the asserted claims of the 706 Patent are not infringed by the manufacturing processes for Teva‑bortezomib or Act‑bortezomib; accordingly Teva is entitled to s.8 compensation and the counterclaim is dismissed.