Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, 2024 FC 1198 (Nintedanib*)
Justice Furlanetto - 2024-08-08
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This judgment arises from a patent infringement action brought under subsection 6(1) of the PMNOC Regulations. ... JAMP denies infringement of the 267 Patent and also asserts in defence that claim 8 (when read through claims 7, 2, and 1) and claims 22 and 23 (when read through claims 8, 7, 2, and 1) of the 267 Patent are invalid for obviousness and that claim 2 is invalid for overbreadth. JAMP has stipulated that it will induce infringement of the 083 Asserted Claims, but denies that it will directly infringe the claims and also asserts in defence that the 083 Patent is invalid for anticipation, double patenting, lack of sound prediction of utility, or in the alternative to lack of sound prediction, obviousness. As set out further below, I find that the action should be allowed in part as the 083 Patent is valid and infringed, but the 267 Patent is not infringed.
Decision relates to:
- T-1563-22 - BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM(CANADA) LTD ET AL v. JAMP PHARMA CORP.