2017 FC 777 - The FC rejected Teva’s allegations that Pfizer's Canadian patent was obvious and lacked utility. The FC found that the POSITA would not have been able to predict the novel crystalline form taught by the patent, and that the subject-matter of the invention claimed in the patent was useful.
2017 FC 774 - The FC granted Pfizer's order pursuant to Section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a NOC to Apotex, with respect to a Canadian patent The FC found, on a balance of probabilities, that Apotex’s allegations of obviousness, inutility, non-infringement, overpromising, anticipation and double patenting were not justified.
2016 FCA 267 - Apotex unsuccessfully sought to show that the FCA had erred in another decision by not following the SCC's decision in Whirlpool. Apotex also unsuccessfully argued that the FC had erred by finding the tadalafil patent to have sufficient disclosure.
PAB 1394 - The Patent Appeal Board rejected the “Home Health Point-Of-Care and Administration System” disclosed in Canadian Patent Application No. 2,579,081 for being obvious to a person skilled in the art.
PAB 1393 - The Patent Appeal Board found that Canadian Patent Application No. 2,544,223, entitled “Stabilized Alpha Helical Peptides and Uses Thereof” lacked utility, lacked sufficient disclosure, was obvious, and included indefinite claims.
2015 FC 108 - Patent drafters are required to provide adequate disclosure of an invention in patent applications to reduce the likelihood that the granted patent will be litigated and invalidated years down the road. This Federal Court (“FC”) decision dismissed an application for a prohibition order on the grounds of non-infringement and found the patent to be obvious and lacking in utility.
PAB 1392 - Patent applicants should be wary of relying solely on evidence of commercial success to avoid rejection on the grounds of obviousness, as factors such as marketing may be found to be the actual reason for the success.
2015 FC 247 - The Federal Court reminds us that a selection patent will typically require something more than routine testing to justify the reclaiming of a particular compound within a previously known class of compounds.