Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 MAY 2015

Speculation Insufficient To Establish Indirect Patent Infringement In Canada

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault LLP provides a broad range of legal services, delivering strategic and...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

The relevance of expert evidence in establishing indirect infringement of a pharmaceutical in Canada has been questioned.

CanadaIntellectual Property

The relevance of expert evidence in establishing indirect infringement of a pharmaceutical in Canada has been questioned. It is unclear what "facts" a product monograph is to contain that will amount to "instructions" to infringe a patent or how a party is to prove that such "facts" amount to "instructions" or how those "instructions" would be understood. What is clear is that "speculation" will not suffice.

On March 26, 2015, the Federal Court released its decision in Bayer Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Partners of Canada Inc., 2015 FC 388, granting PPC's motion to strike portions of an application brought by Bayer under the PM(NOC) Regulations. PPC is seeking regulatory approval for a generic version of Bayer's antibiotic AVELOX® (moxifloxacin hydrochloride intravenous solution for injection). In this proceeding under the PM(NOC) Regulations, Bayer asserts Canadian Patent No. 2,378,424 (the '424 Patent), which claims a formulation of moxifloxacin hydrochloride and sodium

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