Janssen Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

Janssen Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

The Court held that the independent claims defining the specific loading and maintenance dosing regimens for paliperidone palmitate were not obvious to the POSITA as of the priority date and did not claim an unpatentable method of medical treatment; accordingly the claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 are valid, Pharmascience’s proposed products infringe, an injunction is granted until patent expiry, and costs were awarded to Janssen.

Citation
2022 FC 1218
Parties
Plaintiffs: Janssen Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.; Defendant: Pharmascience Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (patented Medicines (noc) Regulations) / Judgment on Validity, Patentable Subject Matter and Injunction (post‑trial)
Outcome
Claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 upheld as valid (not obvious and not a method of medical treatment); infringing conduct found; injunction issued; costs awarded to Janssen.
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Patentable Subject Matter, Method of Medical Treatment, Injunctions, Costs
Source Language
English
Patent Law Pharmaceutical Regulation Civil Litigation Obviousness Patentable Subject Matter Method of Medical Treatment Injunctions Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janssen Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.

Plaintiffs

Pharmascience Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (patented Medicines (noc) Regulations) / Judgment on Validity, Patentable Subject Matter and Injunction (post‑trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 are invalid for obviousness under section 28.3 of the Patent Act
  2. 2 Whether claims are excluded from patentable subject matter as methods of medical treatment under section 2 of the Patent Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the independent claims defining the specific loading and maintenance dosing regimens for paliperidone palmitate were not obvious to the POSITA as of the priority date and did not claim an unpatentable method of medical treatment; accordingly the claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 are valid, Pharmascience’s proposed products infringe, an injunction is granted until patent expiry, and costs were awarded to Janssen.

Court Disposition

Claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 upheld as valid (not obvious and not a method of medical treatment); infringing conduct found; injunction issued; costs awarded to Janssen.

Orders

  • Declaration that claims 1 to 63 of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 are valid.
  • Declaration that Pharmascience’s proposed pms‑PALIPERIDONE PALMITATE in ANDS Nos. 244641 and 251767 would infringe the claims of the 335 Patent.