Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

The court held that Apotex's allegations that the '065 Patent claims directed to panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (and related broader use and dependent claims) were justified: the literature and prior art (notably the Peroutka article and contemporaneous literature) taught SSRIs as logical...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 FCT 1138
Parties
Applicant: Pfizer Canada Inc.; Applicant: Pfizer Inc.; Respondent: Apotex Inc.; Respondent: The Minister of Health
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Under Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.6 / Judgment (reasons for Order and Order)
Outcome
Application dismissed; prohibition denied.
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Anticipation, Specification Sufficiency, Double Patenting, Notice of Compliance Regulations, Patent Invalidity
Source Language
english
Patent Law Regulatory Law Administrative Law Pharmaceutical Regulation Obviousness Anticipation Specification Sufficiency Double Patenting +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pfizer Canada Inc.

Applicant

Pfizer Inc.

Applicant

Apotex Inc.

Respondent

The Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Proceeding Under Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.6 / Judgment (reasons for Order and Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the '065 Patent is invalid for obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the '065 Patent is anticipated by prior art (Peroutka article and '815 Patent)
  3. 3 Whether the specification is insufficient or the patent constitutes double patenting

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Apotex's allegations that the '065 Patent claims directed to panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (and related broader use and dependent claims) were justified: the literature and prior art (notably the Peroutka article and contemporaneous literature) taught SSRIs as logical candidates and disclosed sertraline in Phase II trials for OCD such that a skilled clinician would, without inventive ingenuity or undue experimentation, have used sertraline for PD and OCD; accordingly the patent lacked inventiveness/was anticipated as to those claims and Pfizer failed to discharge its burden to show the NOA allegations were unjustified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; prohibition denied.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants shall pay the costs of this proceeding to Apotex Inc.; if not agreed, the costs shall be assessed in accordance with column III to the table to Tariff B of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.