Plavix case settled before Supreme Court of Canada hearing

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article