Canada Case Law

McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court did not commit a palpable and overriding error in its factual appreciation of expert evidence and common general knowledge; 'high electric field' in Claim 1 is properly understood by a skilled person at the date of publication to refer to electric fields in the range of about 2 to 200 V/cm, which excludes Simplot's pulsed electric field systems, and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Claim construction
• Infringement
• Invalidity
• Utility
• Person skilled in the art
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Medexus Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held the asserted methotrexate patent claims invalid for obviousness, finding the inventive concept was concentration in a known subcutaneous context.

• Obviousness
• Claim construction
• Ambiguity
• Utility
• Insufficiency
• Remedies and damages

Read case analysis

Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. v. ARC Resources Ltd.

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court patent-invalidity counterclaim decision on an at-shore LNG patent: most claims were invalid, but claims 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 were upheld.

• Claim construction
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Insufficiency
• Overbreadth
• Utility/sound prediction

Read case analysis

Sandoz Canada Inc. v. Janssen Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court correctly applied the Wellcome test for sound prediction and reasonably found the requirements met on the evidentiary record; omission of the Eli Lilly phrasing did not constitute an error of law; the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to respondents in the agreed amount of $15,000.

Source excerpt

• Utility
• Sound prediction
• Obviousness
• Invalidity
• Overbreadth
• Insufficiency

Read case analysis

Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin Inc.

Court

Federal Court

Patent infringement and validity dispute over diaper pail cassettes and pails, with purposive claim construction of clearance, chamfer, alignment, and movement features.

• Claim construction
• Infringement
• Invalidity
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Overbreadth

Read case analysis

Allergan Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held the ‘188 Patent valid but found Apotex’s APO-RISEDRONATE DR did not infringe because it was labelled for use with food only.

• Claim construction
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Utility
• Sufficiency of disclosure
• Overbreadth

Read case analysis

Pharmascience Inc. v. Teva Canada Innovation

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Trial Judge did not commit a reviewable error: the common general knowledge combined with the specification provided a sufficient factual basis and line of reasoning to support a sound prediction of utility for the claimed 40 mg thrice-weekly regimen, and the invention was not shown to be obvious as the person skilled in the art would not have been led directly and without difficulty to the claimed solution.

Source excerpt

• Utility
• Sound prediction
• Disclosure requirement
• Obviousness
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court rules Merck’s action partially succeeds: the 363 patent claims are valid but limited to the 13 listed serotypes, while the formulation patents are largely invalid.

• Patent validity
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Claim construction
• Enablement
• Double patenting

Read case analysis

Teva Canada Innovation v. Pharmascience Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court stayed a Patent Office re-examination pending final resolution of the related patent litigation, citing duplicative proceedings and risk of inconsistent outcomes.

• Stay of proceedings
• Re-examination
• Issue estoppel
• Obviousness
• Utility
• Balance of convenience

Read case analysis

Janssen Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held Janssen’s abiraterone acetate/prednisone patent claims obvious and invalid, dismissing the infringement action and the counterclaim.

• Obviousness
• Obvious to try
• Utility
• Sufficiency
• Claim construction
• Patentable subject matter

Read case analysis