STELARA / Anti-IL-12 Antibody Decision Set Aside

Janssen Inc v AbbVie Corporation, 2014 FCA 242 Trudel, Webb, Boivin JJA (for the Court) rev’g 2013 FC 1148 Hughes J and setting aside 2014 FC 55 Hughes J

Janssen Inc v Abbvie Corporation 2014 FCA 241 Trudel, Webb, Boivin JJA (for the Court) setting aside 2014 FC 489 Hughes J

2,365,281 / anti-IL-2 antibodies

In 2013 FC 1148 Hughes J dismissed Janssen’s motion to amend its Schedule A to its Defence and Counterclaim so as to remove some and add other prior art references. The decision of the FCA in 2014 FCA 242 reverses that decision of Hughes J. Consequently, because the amendments in question “go to the heart of one of the major invalidity issues” [15], the FCA also set aside Hughes J’s subsequent decision in the infringement action itself, 2014 FC 55 (blogged here and here). In light of the intimate relationship between the validity and infringement issues, the FCA declined to order a new trial solely on the issues most directly affected by the prior art in question; instead, it acceded to Janssen’s request for a new trial of all the issues [32]. The FCA also ordered that the trial would be before a new judge [32].

In 2014 FCA 241 the FCA set aside the injunction that had been granted by Hughes J in 2014 FC 489 (blogged here) in consequence of his liability decision. While the reasons were very brief, it is evident that the injunction was set aside purely in consequence of the setting aside of the liability decision, and not on its own merits.

In 2014 FC 863, Janssen was held to be prima facie in contempt of that injunction, as blogged here. Presumably the setting aside of the injunction would provide a defence to the prima facie contempt.

Res Judicata in a Bifurcated Action

Merck & Co Inc v Apotex Inc 2014 FC 883 Lafrenière J
            1,275,350 – lisinopril – PRINIVIL

This motion to amend a Responding Statement of Issues raises a very interesting and difficult issue respecting the application of res judicata to a bifurcated action when the law has changed between the liability and damages portions, though at the end of the day I doubt the resolution of that question would make any difference to the outcome.

In the underlying Lisinopril Liability decision, 2006 FC 524 aff’d 2006 FCA 323, Apotex argued that the ‘350 patent was invalid because it was improperly divided from the parent ‘340 application, which disclosed only one invention. Hughes J rejected this on the basis that he was bound by prior case law, including Boehringer (1962), 39 CPR 201, to hold that each claim constitutes a different invention [116]. The FCA affirmed on this basis [39]. Subsequently, in its Viagra decision 2012 SCC 60 [57], the SCC held that Boehringer “does not stand for the proposition that every claim in a patent application is a separate invention.” In this motion Apotex argued that the law having changed – or at least, the Liability decision having been based on a misunderstanding of the law – it should be able to amend its defence in the damages portion of the action to argue that the Merck did not suffer any damages as a result of Apotex’ activities [28.12].

Essentially, the argument is that even though Apotex has been found liable for infringement, it should not be made to pay damages for infringement of an invalid patent. In support, Apotex relied on the UKSC decision in Virgin Atlantic [2013] UKSC 46. In Virgin Atlantic, the EWCA had held the patent at issue to be valid and infringed, and ordered an enquiry as to damages [11]. Subsequently, the EPO held the patent to be invalid [12]. The effect of the EPO decision is that the patent on which the liability decision was based is deemed never to have existed [27]. However, the EPO decision could not be raised by way of an appeal of the liability decision, as the order of the EWCA was final and not subject to appeal [16]. The question before the UKSC was whether the defendant should be able to raise the invalidity in the enquiry as to damage [16]. The UKSC held that the invalidity could be considered in the damages enquiry [37].

No New Cases for the Week of 20 October

No new patent / NOC / data protection cases were released for the week of 20 October 2014.

Keep in mind that I generally only blog on substantive patent / pharma cases. If you want to keep abreast of all new Canadian decisions, including procedural decisions and cases outside that core substantive area, I recommend subscribing to the Daily Intellectual Property News service from Alan Macek's IPPractice.

More on the Perfect Match Requirement of Listing on the Patent Register

ViiV Healthcare ULC v Teva Canada Ltd 2014 FC 893 Hughes J aff’g 2014 FC 328
Milczynski J (here)
            abacavir & lamivudine. / KIVEXA & TRIZIVIR / 2,289,753

Hughes J applied the “perfect match” requirement for listing of a patent on the Patent Register, as set out by the FCA in the leading case of Gilead / COMPLERA 2012 FCA 254 (blogged here), to uphold Milczynski J decision (blogged here) that the ‘753 patent cannot be listed on the Patent Register against KIVEXA or TRIZIVIR. There is not really any new law in this decision, though Hughes J does provide a thorough review of the case law at [47], and a list of principles emerging from those cases at [48]. The main point of interest is that in this litigation, the Minister of Health had argued that while a perfect match is required to list a patent claiming a formulation under 4(2)(b) of the NOC Regulation, a perfect match is not required to list of a patent claiming a medicinal ingredient, which is governed by 4(2)(a). However, as Milczynski J held, in Gilead the FCA clearly held that the perfect match is required under 4(2)(a), and Hughes J has now affirmed. In other posts on the listing requirement I have argued that the perfect match requirement is rigid formalism, because eligibility for listing turns on how the claims are drafted rather than on the substantive scope of the claims. I can understand how the “relevant” standard developed by the courts under the old Regulations was too liberal, but requiring a perfect literal match strikes me as too strict; it seems to me that a “would necessarily infringe” standard would strike a better balance. But the point is settled law now.

Here is the summary of the law provided by Hughes J:

[48] I draw the following principles respecting the interpretation of the various subsections of 4(2) of the NOC Regulations having regard particularly to the Federal Court of Appeal decisions and the Reasons of Justice Russell in Bayer, as affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal:

• There is no sound reason to adopt different legislative requirements of product specificity for the various subparagraphs of subsection 4(2) of the NOC Regulations (Gilead, paragraph 39);

• absent precise and specific matching between what the patent claims and the product/use/dosage forms for which the NOC has been granted to the first person, the Minister cannot properly list the patent (Purdue, paragraphs 43; Abbott, paragraph 49; Gilead, paragraphs 37-38);

• a claim for a formulation means a claim that includes both medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients. A claim directed to medicinal ingredients, without claiming also non-medicinal ingredients, does not qualify for listing as a formulation under subsection 4(2)(b) of the NOC Regulations (Gilead, paragraphs 27 to 32, 49; Bayer, paragraphs 67 to 69).

• where a patent claims only one medicinal ingredient, it cannot be listed as against an NOC obtained for two (or more) medicinal ingredients; at least where, to use the words of Russell J, at paragraph 69 of Bayer, where “…a drug with one medicinal ingredient will have a different effect from a drug where two medicinal ingredients are combined “to achieve the desired effect [emphasis added].” This same distinction appears in Gilead, where Trudel JA wrote at paragraphs 31 and 32:

31 Finally, the overall inventive step of the '475 Patent, as found by the Judge, is the combination of chemically stable medicinal ingredients. The '475 Patent emphasizes the beneficial effects of combining chemically stable combinations of medicinal ingredients.

32 Thus, I conclude that the '475 Patent falls under paragraph 4(2)(a), as the relevant claims consist of chemically stable combinations of medicinal ingredients.

As the last bullet point indicates, Hughes J considered whether the prior case law left open the possibility that a patent claiming one medicinal ingredient might be listable against a drug with two medicinal ingredients if there was no synergy between drugs. However, he ultimately held that

[89] In my view, it is not productive when considering the listing requirements of subsection 4(2) of the NOC Regulations to consider synergy or not. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Gilead is sufficiently clear. A patent claim for only one medicinal ingredient cannot support a listing under the NOC Regulations where the underlying NOC is for a combination (synergistic or otherwise) of two or more medicinal ingredients.

For a discussion of the facts related to KIVEXA, see my post on Milczynski J’s decision, here. This appeal also consolidated a closely related proceeding in which Apoex also challenged the listing of the ‘753 patent against KIVEXA [9], as well as a third proceeding in which Apotex challenged the listing of the ‘753 patent against TRIZIVIR. The legal issues were substantially the same in all the proceedings.