ARTICLE
29 January 2021

Federal Court Finds Silodosin Formulation Patent Valid But Not Infringed

SB
Smart & Biggar

Contributor

Smart & Biggar uncovers and maximizes intellectual property and technology assets for our clients. Today’s fast-paced innovation economy demands a higher level of expertise and attention to detail when it comes to IP strategy and protection. With over 125 lawyers, patent agents and trademark agents collaborating across five Canadian offices, Smart & Biggar is trusted by the world’s leading innovators to find value in their IP rights. As market leaders in IP, Smart & Biggar’s team is on the pulse when it comes to the latest developments and the wider industry changes that impact our clients. To stay informed, visit smartbiggar.ca/insights, including access to our RxIP Update (smartbiggar.ca/insights/rx-ip-updates), a monthly digest of the latest decisions and law surrounding the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries.
On December 24, 2020, the Federal Court issued a decision in a patent infringement action pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance...
Canada Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On December 24, 2020, the Federal Court issued a decision in a patent infringement action pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations relating to silodosin (Allergan's RAPAFLO): Allergan Inc v Sandoz Canada Inc, 2020 FC 1189. Chief Justice Crampton found that Canadian Patent No. 2,507,002, relating to a capsule formulation of silodosin, is not invalid on the basis of obviousness but not infringed as "the Sandoz Product does not contain 'granules' and does not involve 'granulating' or a 'wet granulation process'", all of which were found to be essential elements.

The Court declined to consider the prosecution file history in determining whether certain claim elements were essential on the basis that s. 53.1 of the Patent Act permits admission of the prosecution history to rebut representations made by the patentee (Kissei in this case) in an action or application, not a licensee (Allergan in this case). The patentee made no representations to the Court regarding construction.

The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More