Plavix case settled before Supreme Court of Canada hearing
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Plavix case settled before Supreme Court of Canada hearing

A case that was expected to provide guidance on Canada's "promise" doctrine of utility and the test for sound prediction of utility has been settled a day before it was due to be argued at a Supreme Court hearing

plavix.jpg

On November 3, Apotex discontinued its appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the validity of Sanofi-Aventis' patent claiming clopidogrel bisulfate, which is marketed as Plavix. As a result, the Supreme Court hearing scheduled for November 4 has been cancelled.

Plavix is used to prevent blood clots after a heart attack or stroke.

Observers were hoping the case would provide some certainty around the scope of the utility requirement. In an amicus brief in the case, AIPPI noted that following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in AZT in 2002 and Viagra in 2012 “there has been uncertainty with respect to the precise scope of the utility requirement under Canadian law and in particular the extent to which the utility of a patented invention should be disclosed or supported in the patent specification.”

In AZT, the Court stated that utility must either be demonstrated or be a sound prediction based on information and expertise available at the filing date. In Viagra, the Court declined to decide the scope of any disclosure requirement associated with “sound prediction”. The brief stated that this “remains an open question in the jurisprudence of this Court, and an area of significant uncertainty in Canadian law”.

Other organisations that filed briefs in the case include BIOTECanada, Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association and FICPI.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partners at Fenwick explain why they had to be aggressive when helping Lashify win a patent infringement trial
Big law firms are reorganising their IP departments in response to changing client needs and new legal challenges
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Louis-Pierre Gravelle discusses why he didn’t want to be part of the newly acquired Bereskin & Parr and the opportunities he’s eyeing at his new home, Dipchand
Sources say greater transparency would help them draft better briefs, and debate whether the UPC has struck the right balance
Rouse and IPH’s latest acquisition sprees show they are abandoning Asia for markets in Europe and Canada
Vince Shier and Ryan Smith, who recently joined Brown Rudnick, say their new firm offers a strong platform to provide strategic advice
Innovation and expertise will be showcased again in Munich in November at the fourteenth edition of IP Service World as the future of intellectual property management comes under the spotlight
John O’Shea has left IPH after six years as the company seeks to streamline its Asia-Pacific and Canada businesses
Elham Dehbozorgi explains why she took on the newly created role and why conflict checks can be complex for IP firms
Gift this article