Allergan Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2022 FC 260 (Risedronate*)
Justice Kane - 2022-02-23
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This patent infringement action focusses on one of the bisphosphonates ? risedronate ? taken weekly as a 35 mg dosage and known as ACTONEL DR. ... Allergan seeks a declaration that Apotex will infringe, directly or indirectly, at least one of the claims of the ‘188 Patent by making, constructing, using and selling the Apotex generic product. Apotex disputes that its product will infringe the ‘188 Patent. Apotex also alleges that the ‘188 Patent is invalid on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness, inutility, insufficiency of disclosure and overbreadth. ... For the reasons that follow I find that Apotex has not established on a balance of probabilities that the asserted claims of the ‘188 Patent are invalid. I find that the asserted claims are not anticipated by BR 601 and are not obvious in light of the prior art, including BR 601. I also find that the asserted claims are not invalid due to lack of demonstrated utility, insufficiency of disclosure or overbreadth. I also find that Allergan has not established on a balance of probabilities that Apotex will infringe the asserted claims of the ‘188 Patent either directly or indirectly. The Apotex product is only for use with food. It is not for use with or without food, which is an essential element of the asserted claims.
Decision relates to:
- T-794-19 - ALLERGAN INC. ET AL v. APOTEX INC.