We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
25 January 2017
Patent law developments
Section 8 and other claims following failed Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations proceedings
Quantification of damages
Health Canada and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Patent litigation practice
PMNOC Regulations and data protection statistics
This update highlights developments in Canadian life sciences IP and regulatory law in 2016.
Utility and promise doctrine remain unresolved
The Supreme Court of Canada heard AstraZeneca's appeal on November 8 2016 regarding the utility promise doctrine and AstraZeneca's patent relating to esomeprazole (Nexium). The decision was reserved. Also pending is a decision of the arbitration tribunal regarding the damages claim made by Eli Lilly under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The claim is based on the Canadian judiciary's application of the promise doctrine to patents pertaining to Strattera (atomoxetine) and Zyprexa (olanzapine) as contravening Canada's obligations under NAFTA and the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The hearing concluded on June 8 2016 and post-hearing submissions were filed on July 25 2016.
Greater clarity on obviousness and double patenting
The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the correct test for determining whether an invention is obvious under the 'obvious to try' test is still whether it was "more or less self-evident" to try to obtain the invention – and not a lower standard, such as whether the solution provides a "fair expectation of success" or whether "the skilled person had good reason to pursue predictable solutions".(1) The Federal Court of Appeal also clarified the test for double patenting.(2)
The Ontario Divisional Court denied Pfizer leave to appeal a decision permitting Apotex's unjust enrichment claim regarding sildenafil to proceed. The Federal Court of Appeal overturned Teva's C$125 million award (venlaxafine, Effexor XR) for improper reliance on hearsay evidence and remitted the matter to the trial judge for redetermination.(3) However, the scheduled redetermination by the trial judge has been adjourned while a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada is pending and, if leave is granted, until the appeal is determined. Apotex was denied leave from the Supreme Court regarding a decision striking an unjust enrichment claim against Eli Lilly relating to atomoxetine. However, Apotex's damage claim relating to Apo-Ramipril and based on alleged improper issuance of a patent and a failed prohibition proceeding pursuant to the Trademarks Act and Statutes of Monopolies has been permitted to proceed. The Supreme Court also denied leave in a proposed class action regarding Viagra, which sought to allege that consumers had been overcharged as a result of Pfizer's unsuccessful prohibition proceeding.
The Supreme Court declined to hear Apotex's proposed appeal regarding the relevance of a non-infringing alternative in assessing damages for patent infringement in a case involving lovastatin (Mevacor). The Federal Court awarded Janssen close to C$20 million from Teva for infringing its patent relating to levofloxacin (Levaquin).(4) Teva's appeal is pending.
On September 9 2016 the Federal Court released a decision finding that Apotex and Cobalt had each infringed Bayer's valid patent for an oral contraceptive composition combining drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol. The court rejected all alleged grounds of invalidity:
The court granted Bayer a declaration of validity and infringement by Apotex and Cobalt, as well as an order enjoining Apotex and Cobalt from further infringement and delivery up of any infringing goods. The court requested written submissions on an election of damages or an accounting of profits. The judgment regarding the injunction and delivery up or destruction as it applied to Apotex has been stayed, and the court has required that Apotex meet certain conditions, including to expedite its appeal. Cobalt has also appealed. On October 27 2016 the Federal Court found that Bayer should be entitled to elect between damages and an accounting of the defendants' profits despite Apotex's argument that it, not Bayer, should decide Bayer's remedy.
Patent term restoration
On October 31 2016, the day following the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and Europe, Bill C-30 was tabled in order to implement CETA.(5) The second reading and referral to committee was completed on December 13 2016. If CETA is passed into law, certificates of supplementary protection will become available, which may provide up to two years' patent term restoration for marketing delays resulting from the regulatory approval process. Bill C-30 also provides regulation-making authority to end dual litigation under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) (PMNOC) Regulations and the Patent Act. If CETA is not ratified, patent term restoration may still become available in Canada if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is ratified. Public submissions on the TPP are being accepted until January 27 2017 and the fate of the TPP remains uncertain.
Planning, reporting and consulting
At the end of 2015, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) released its 2015-2018 strategic plan. Reports were released in February 2016 analysing generic drug pricing and in May 2016 on public drug plan expenditures and October 2016 saw a Market Intelligence Report: Biologic response modifier agents 2015, which was highlighted in the PMPRB November NEWSletter. The NEWSletter also reported on the consultations on modernising pricing guidelines, which began in May 2016 to modernise and simplify the framework for determining when patented drug prices are excessive. Phase 1 of the consultation is complete, with the timing of Phase 2 of the consultation process to be announced, which will allow stakeholders who provided comments on the PMPRB discussion paper an opportunity to make oral submissions. The PMPRB annual report was released after being tabled in August 2016. The 2015 annual report indicates that Canadian patented drug prices remain the third-highest among the seven comparator countries against which the PMPRB reviews prices, behind Germany and the United States. At the end of 2015, 93 investigations into possible excessive patented drug pricing were ongoing.
Judicial challenges to PMPRB jurisdiction unsuccessful
In June 2016, the Federal Court struck Alexion's constitutional challenge of PMPRB provisions in the Patent Act. The court noted that should leave to appeal be granted in the Sandoz matter, the issue of the constitutionality of the price control regime and the jurisdiction of the PMPRB would be open to consideration by the Supreme Court. However, Sandoz and Ratiopharm discontinued their application for leave to appeal on September 8 2016. An appeal by Alexion of its challenge remains pending.
New transparency initiatives include an expanded Health Canada listing of regulatory decision summaries and submissions under review. Further, flowing from Vanessa's Law, Health Canada released a Draft Guide on Disclosure of Confidential Business Information, an interim approach to drug safety updates and an issue identification paper for comment regarding mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions by healthcare institutions.
Health Canada provides further guidance on biosimilars
New guidance for biosimilars was adopted on November 14 2016, replacing the guidance from March 5 2010. A revised Fact Sheet: Biosimilars was also published.
Biosimilar approvals and litigation continue
Brenzys, a product of Samsung Bioepis, was approved on August 31 2016, making it the sixth biosimilar after Omnitrope (Sandoz, 2009), Remsima/Inflectra (Celltrion, Hospira, 2014), Basaglar (Eli Lilly, 2015) and Grastofil (Apotex, 2015). A PMNOC proceeding concerning Sandoz's etanercept biosimilar is pending; a patent impeachment/infringement trial is ongoing for Remsima/Inflectra and a patent infringement/impeachment action for Grastofil is pending. Amgen's leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the Federal Court of Appeal decision dismissing the Grastofil PMNOC proceeding for mootness was denied. For Inflectra, the Federal Court upheld a decision summarily dismissing the PMNOC proceeding relating to the inflammatory bowel disease indications based on a patent found to "speak specifically and directly to and only to the RA Indications" of infliximab. Janssen is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the Federal Court of Appeal decision finding that a cross-referenced drug submission did not trigger Section 5 of the PMNOC Regulations absent early working, resulting in a notice of compliance to Hospira for infliximab.(6)
Other biologics news for 2016 included a settlement of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) action with Transgenomic, allowing:
"CHEO and all other Canadian public sector hospitals and laboratories the right to test Canadians for Long QT syndrome on a not-for-profit basis… without legal roadblocks from [the] gene patents."
In addition, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has signalled a change in practice for humanised antibodies with a decision clarifying support requirements.(7)
A quia timet patent infringement claim was allowed to proceed, with the Federal Court dismissing Teva's motion to strike a patent infringement claim by Gilead made further to Teva's impeachment action regarding patents relating to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate products (Truvada and Viread). Valeant's prohibition application under the PMNOC Regulations in respect of metformin (Valeant's Glumetza) was struck as an abuse of process upon a Section 6(5)(b) motion brought by Apotex. New case management guidelines for PMNOC applications were released in May 2016. The 'blinding' of experts in PMNOC applications (eg, as to the generic's product) continues to have mixed results:
In another decision, the court found that the blinding issue is a question of relevance, reliability and weight rather than a doctrinal matter and therefore approached the evidence on a case-by-case basis.
In March 2016, the Competition Bureau released updated IP Enforcement Guidelines which describe the bureau's approach to conducting investigations of potentially anti-competitive activities relating to intellectual property, including settlements in PMNOC proceedings and product switching.(8) In October 2016 the Competition Bureau released a report questioning restrictions on healthcare advertising.(9)
Based on the eight Federal Court PMNOC Regulations decisions reported by the end of 2016, the patentee was successful on the merits on three patents in three cases and the generic manufacturer was successful on six patents in six cases. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed all five PMNOC Regulations appeals (patentee on three patents; generic manufacturer on two patents).(10)
For further information on this topic please contact Daphne Lainson at Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh's by telephone (+1 613 232 2486) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). The Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh website can be accessed at www.smart-biggar.ca.
(1) For further details please see "Federal Court of Appeal considers standard for 'obvious to try' test".
(2) For further details please see "Federal Court of Appeal opines on framework for analysing obviousness-type double patenting".
(3) For further details please see "Federal Court of Appeal overturns Teva's award for improper reliance on hearsay evidence".
(4) For further details please see "Federal Court grants Janssen nearly C$20 million against Teva for patent infringement".
(5) For further details please see "Bill C-30 to implement CETA: implications for pharmaceuticals".
(6) For further details please see "Federal Court of Appeal finds minister reasonable: cross-referenced drug submissions show no evidence of early working".
(7) For further details please see "Commissioner's decisions clarify support requirements for humanised antibodies".
(8) For further details please see "Competition Bureau releases revised IP Enforcement Guidelines".
(9) For further details please see "Competition Bureau report questions restrictions on healthcare advertising".
(10) See summary table here. See also the Therapeutic Products Directorate report providing a statistical overview of Health Canada's administration of the PMNOC Regulations and data protection, the Therapeutic Products Directorate and the Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate's Drug Submission Performance Annual Reports.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.