PATENTS - Criteria for patent protection - Non-obviousness

Law360 Canada (May 17, 2023, 5:57 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Teva Canada Limited (Teva) and cross-appeal by Janssen Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (Janssen) from Federal Court judgment for patent infringement. Teva argued that the Federal Court made reviewable errors in concluding that claims 1 to 48 of Janssen's Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 (335 Patent) were not obvious. Janssen submitted the Federal Court erred in declining to find it would induce infringement of claims 1 to 48 of the 335 Patent. The 335 Patent described and claimed prefilled syringes, uses of dosage forms, and medicaments of what was known as a depot formulation of the drug paliperidone, formulated as paliperidone palmitate, for administration in accordance with the dosing regimens claimed in the 335 Patent for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. The Federal Court also found the making, constructing, using or selling of prolonged release injectable suspensions of paliperidone palmitate by Teva in accordance with its submission to Health Canada in ANDS No. 210095 would infringe claims 1 to 16 and 33 to 48 of the 335 Patent, which the Federal Court found were product claims, and Teva would not induce infringement of any of claims 1 to 48 of the 335 Patent....
LexisNexis® Research Solutions

Related Sections