Medexus Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., 2024 FC 424
Justice Pallotta - 2024-03-26
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
In this patent action the plaintiffs seek remedies for the defendants’ alleged infringement of Canadian Patent titled “Concentrated Methotrexate Solutions” (662 Patent). ... The only point of claim construction in dispute relates to the meaning of the term ‘about 50 mg/ml’ in claims 3 and 20 of the 662 Patent. ... For the reasons below, the Asserted Claims are invalid for obviousness. ... I will address ambiguity in detail because it overlaps with claim construction, and because two expert witnesses addressed it in some detail and were cross-examined at length on this ground. I will address utility, insufficiency, and overbreadth to the extent these grounds affect the narrowest Asserted Claim; however, the analysis is brief in view of my findings on obviousness. ... Turning to the general objection, I agree with the defendants that [fact witnesses] Dr. Jansen’s and Dr. Janssen’s testimony is inadmissible. Their testimony related to three general topics: (i) Jansen 1999; (ii) aspects of the state of the art; and (iii) whether these witnesses considered increasing the concentration of methotrexate solutions or creating a new methotrexate formulation. ... The defendants have not persuaded me that the skilled person would be unable to define ‘about 50 mg/ml’ with sufficient precision so as to be fair to both the patentee and the public.
Decision relates to:
- T-1007-20 - MEDEXUS PHARMACEUTICALS INC. ET AL. v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC.