Janssen Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc., 2025 FC 718 (Macitentan*)
Associate Justice Horne - 2025-04-22
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
In this action brought pursuant to section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the defendant has brought a motion to amend its pleading to add a Gillette defence. ... The motion to amend as it relates to the 770 Patent is dismissed because it would result in an internally inconsistent pleading, and also constitute a radical departure from PMS’ existing defence that it will engage in monotherapy only. The motion as it relates to the 273 Patent is also dismissed. While a sustainable pleading could be drafted to articulate a Gillette defence for the 273 Patent, the proposed amendments do not set out discrete material facts for the two patents, rather describe the defence collectively. The dismissal of the motion in this respect is without prejudice to PMS seeking to add a Gillette defence for the 273 Patent only.
Decision relates to:
- T-2593-24 - JANSSEN INC. ET AL. v. PHARMASCIENCE INC.