Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pfizer Canada Inc., & Warner-lambert Company v Pharmascience Inc. & the Minister of Health

Pfizer Canada Inc., & Warner-lambert Company v Pharmascience Inc. & the Minister of Health

Ratings: (0)|Views: 98|Likes:
Published by Ilya

More info:

Published by: Ilya on Feb 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Date: 20130204Docket: T-556-11Citation: 2013 FC 120Toronto, Ontario, February 4, 2013PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice HughesBETWEEN:PFIZER CANADA INC., ANDWARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY LLCApplicantsandPHARMASCIENCE INC. ANDTHE MINISTER OF HEALTHRespondentsREASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
 
This is an application brought under the provisions of the
Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations
SOR/93-133, as amended (
 NOC Regulations
) to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Pharmascience Inc. in respect of its PMS-Pregabalincapsules of 25 mg, 50 mg, 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg dosage strengths until the expiry of Canadian Letters Patent No. 2,255,652 ('652 patent). The original Notice of Application was filedApril 1, 2011, which means that this matter must be determined by April 1, 2013.
 
Page: 2[2]
 
For the reasons that follow, I find that the Application is dismissed, with costs.
INDEX
[3]
 
The following is an Index to these Reasons by paragraph numbers:THE PARTIES Paras 4 to 8THE '652 PATENT GENERALLY Paras 9 to 15THE EVIDENCE Paras 16 to 20ISSUES Paras 21 to 23BURDEN Paras 24 to 27PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART Paras 28 to 35THE '652 PATENT IN DETAILa) The SpecificationParas 36 to 58Paras 36 to 58CLAIM 3 Paras 59 - 62CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM 3
 – 
PAIN Paras 63 to 82CLAIMS BROADER THAN THEINVENTION MADE OR DISCLOSEDParas 83 to 95SOUND PREDICTION
 – 
UTILITYDISCLOSUREPharmaceutical ClaimsInventionHistory of the JurisprudenceWhere does all this leave us?In the present case:Paras 96 to 163Paras 102 to 105Paras 106 to 111Paras 112 to 158Para 159Paras 160 to 163
 
Page: 3UTILITY
 – 
SOUND PREDICTION
 – 
 CLAIM 31.
 
Pregabalin does not treat all types of pain2.
 
The patent fails to disclose any utility of the racemate or any basis for a soundprediction that the racemate would treatall or even some types of pain:Paras 164 to 185Paras 168 to 178Paras 179 to 185OBVIOUSNESS Paras 186 to 205REISSUE APPLICATION Paras 206 to 215CONCLUSIONS AND COSTS Paras 216 to 218
THE PARTIES
[4]
 
The Applicant Pfizer Canada Inc. (Pfizer) is a “first person” as so described in the
 NOC  Regulations
. It has listed the '652 patent in accordance with those
 Regulations
. Pfizer has obtainedfrom the Minister of Health a Notice of Compliance to sell tablets containing pregabalin in 25, 50,75, 150, and 300 mg. strengths, which it does under the brand name LYRICA.[5]
 
The Applicant Warner-Lambert Company LLC (Warner-Lambert) claims to be the owner of the '652 patent. This claim is not contested in these proceedings.[6]
 
The Respondent Pharmascience Inc. (Pharmascience) is a “second person” as so described
in the
 NOC Regulations
. It seeks to sell a generic version of Pfizer’s LYRICA drug. To do so, it
must receive a Notice of Compliance from the Minister of Health. In accordance with the
 NOC  Regulations
, Pharmascience has served Pfizer with a Notice of Allegation dated February 11, 2011.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->