Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 MARCH 2014

Claims Construction For Patent Listing – Does It Serve Any Purpose?

Gowling WLG
Gowling WLG
Contributor
Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG

The firm The firm’s lawyers speak English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. The firm’s client base...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gowling WLG

On February 17, 2014, the Federal Court dismissed an application by Eli Lilly for judicial review of the Minister of Health’s refusal to list Lilly’s Canadian Patent No. 2,379,329 in respect of its drug product, TRIFEXIS®.

CanadaIntellectual Property

Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Attorney General of Canada et al, 2014 FC 152

On February 17, 2014, the Federal Court dismissed an application by Eli Lilly for judicial review of the Minister of Health's refusal to list Lilly's Canadian Patent No. 2,379,329 in respect of its drug product, TRIFEXIS®.  The Federal Court held that it was bound by the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Gilead Sciences Canada Inc v Canada (Ministry of Health), 2012 FCA 254, with respect to the product specificity requirements prescribed by paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. 

The underlying decision indicated that the '329 Patent claimed a formulation comprising only one medicinal ingredient, spinosad, rather than claims for a formulation that contained the two medicinal ingredients present in TRIFEXIS® (spinosad and milbemycin oxime).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from