Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc., 2013 FCA 186 (Clopidogrel*)
Justice Pelletier; Justice Gauthier; Justice Noël - 2013-07-24
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
Apotex applied for a Notice of Compliance from the Minister of Health, alleging that its version of clopidogrel/Plavix did not infringe Sanofi's patent which, it alleged, was invalid in any event for a number of reasons, including obviousness. Sanofi responded by applying successfully to the Federal Court for an order prohibiting the Minister from issuing the Notice of Compliance to Apotex (2005 FC 390; 2006 FCA 421; 2008 SCC 61). In this impeachment/infringement action, the trial judge found that the patent was invalid for lack of utility on the basis that the promise of the patent had neither been demonstrated nor soundly predicted. In addition, the Trial Judge found that the invention described in the patent was obvious (see 2011 FC 1486). In this decision, the FCA, addressing the promise of the patent, obviousness, and the limitation period applicable, set aside the trial decision, finding the patent valid and infringed.
Decision relates to:
- A-7-12 - SANOFI-AVENTIS ET AL v. APOTEX ET AL which is an appeal from 2011 FC 1486 in T-644-09