We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
17 December 2018
A Federal Court order has issued on a motion to strike that was brought by Sandoz in four actions relating to the infringement of rituximab patents. The court's treatment of the novel claims by Roche may be of interest to litigants under the current scheme of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.
The court declined to strike out the claims for damages and an accounting of profits on the basis that, at law, such remedies are not available in such an action. In the absence of case law on whether these remedies are available under the current regulations, and in view of the broad wording of Section 6(4), the claims were novel and arguable. However, as pleaded, the claim for future damages and an accounting of profits (grounded on possible issuance of a notice of compliance and in the absence of any sales by Sandoz) was struck out as hypothetical. The plaintiffs may seek leave to amend should they become aware of material facts. Roche's claim based on Sandoz's past and present acts of infringement – pleaded as promotion and marketing of its proposed product in Canada – was permitted to stand.
The court declined to strike paragraphs on the basis of Sandoz's assertion that certain activities undertaken by it in the development and submission of information to Health Canada and provincial formularies fall within the exemption to infringement in Section 55.2 of the Patent Act. For example, the allegation that Sandoz's filing of its drug submission had been an infringing act was a novel and arguable claim in light of the recent regulatory and statutory amendments. The scope of exempted activities had been a matter for determination at trial.
Finally, the court struck out paragraphs that Sandoz will act in concert with formularies and hospitals to infringe the asserted patent claims, with leave to amend with particulars. The allegation was novel but was at least arguable, falling within the concept of infringement by common design recognised in the jurisprudence. Roche is required to plead particulars of all third parties that are asserted to be acting in concert with Sandoz and their conduct, such as:
For further information on this topic please contact Lynn Ing at Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh by telephone (+1 416 593 5514) or email (email@example.com). The Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh website can be accessed at www.smart-biggar.ca.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.