Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

On the evidence and accepted expert testimony the claimed crystalline Form I ODV succinate is a novel composition of matter whose formation, polymorphism and properties were unpredictable; Pfizer proved on a balance of probabilities that the asserted claims were not obvious (including under the 'obvious to try' analysis) and that the claimed subject-matter had utility (stability and demonstrated/soundly predicted bioavailability and therapeutic use); accordingly prohibition under s.6 was ordered and costs awarded to Pfizer.

Citation
2017 FC 777
Parties
Applicant: Pfizer Canada Inc.; Applicant: Wyeth LLC; Respondent: Teva Canada Limited; Respondent: The Minister of Health
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 August 2017
Procedural Posture
NOC Proceeding (s.6 Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations) / Judgment Following Hearing (federal Court)
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Obvious to Try, Utility, Selection Patent, Patent Validity, NOC Regulations
Source Language
English
Patent Law Pharmaceutical Regulation Administrative Law Obviousness Obvious to Try Utility Selection Patent Patent Validity +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pfizer Canada Inc.

Applicant

Wyeth LLC

Applicant

Teva Canada Limited

Respondent

The Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

NOC Proceeding (s.6 Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations) / Judgment Following Hearing (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 8,9,33,43 and 44 are obvious
  2. 2 Whether claims 8,9,33,43 and 44 lack utility
  3. 3 Whether the 668 Patent is a selection patent

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and accepted expert testimony the claimed crystalline Form I ODV succinate is a novel composition of matter whose formation, polymorphism and properties were unpredictable; Pfizer proved on a balance of probabilities that the asserted claims were not obvious (including under the 'obvious to try' analysis) and that the claimed subject-matter had utility (stability and demonstrated/soundly predicted bioavailability and therapeutic use); accordingly prohibition under s.6 was ordered and costs awarded to Pfizer.