Bayer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2016 FC 1013 (Drospirenone*)
Justice Fothergill - 2016-09-07
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
Apotex and Cobalt also sell oral contraceptive pills with ethinylestradiol and drospirenone as the active pharmaceutical ingredients. The dosages are similar to those used in the plaintiffs’ products. The tablets are also rapidly dissolving and do not have an enteric coat. The plaintiffs say that Apotex’s and Cobalt’s products infringe claims 31, 48 and 49 of the ‘426 patent. Apotex and Cobalt reply that their products are formulated in a manner that brings them outside the scope of the asserted claims. They also maintain that the claims are invalid. ... I find that claims 31, 48 and 49 of the ‘426 patent are not invalid based on any of the asserted grounds of: (i) obviousness; (ii) anticipation; (iii) overbreadth; (iv) insufficiency or ambiguity of the specification; or (v) inutility. I also find that Apotex’s and Cobalt’s products are formulated in a manner that falls within the scope of claims 31, 48 and 49 of the ‘426 patent. Apotex’s and Cobalt’s products therefore infringe claims 31, 48 and 49 of the ‘426 patent.
Decision relates to:
- T-1368-14 - BAYER INC. ET AL v. APOTEX INC.
- T-1379-13 - BAYER INC. ET AL v. COBALT PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY
- A-318-16 - which is an appeal from this decision
- T-1468-13 - BAYER INC. ET AL v. APOTEX INC.