Hoffmann-La Roche Limited v. Sandoz Canada Inc., 2021 FC 384 (Pirfenidone*)
Justice Manson - 2021-05-12
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This proceeding involves four patent infringement actions (T-896-19, T-897-19, T-898-19 and T-899-19), under subsection 6(1) of the PM(NOC) Regulations. ... As it relates to the question of infringement, Sandoz will not directly infringe the 654 Asserted Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 14 to 18 or the 997 Asserted Claim 11. However, Sandoz will induce infringement of the 654 Asserted Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14 to 17. On the question of validity, the 654 and 997 Asserted Claims are invalid on the basis of obviousness and as methods of medical treatment. The 997 Asserted Claim is also invalid on the basis of obviousness double patenting. Invalidity has not been established on the basis of anticipation or ambiguity for the 654 Asserted Claims. Invalidity of the 654 and 997 Asserted Claims has further not been established on the basis of utility, over claiming or insufficiency.
Decision relates to:
- T-896-19 - HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE LIMITED ET AL. v. SANDOZ CANADA INC.
- A-149-21 - which is an appeal from this decision
- T-897-19 - HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LIMITED ET AL v. SANDOZ CANADA INC.
- T-898-19 - HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE LIMITED ET AL. v. SANDOZ CANADA INC.
- T-899-19 - HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE LIMITED ET AL. v. SANDOZ CANADA INC.