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.
01 July 2019
The Federal Court has granted in part Pharmascience's motion to strike out portions of Teva's statement of claim under Subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) (PMNOC) Regulations relating to glatiramer acetate (Teva's Copaxone and Pharmascience's Glatect).(1)
Teva holds notices of compliance (NOCs) for Copaxone in 20mg and 40mg strengths but listed Canadian Patent 2,702,437 against Copaxone for the 40mg strength only. Pharmascience previously obtained an NOC for Glatect 20mg and filed a supplemental new drug submission (SNDS) for the 40mg strength. In its action, Teva sought a declaration of infringement for both Glatect 20mg and 40mg, as well as relief for past and current infringement relating to Glatect 20mg. Pharmascience moved to strike on the basis that the claim improperly joined a cause of action in infringement in respect of a drug product for which Pharmascience already holds an NOC and which is not addressed in its notice of allegation.
Assuming that the SNDS relates to Glatect 20mg (in addition to the 40mg) as Teva alleged, the court declined to strike Teva's claim pursuant to Subsection 6(1) for a declaration of infringement relating to this strength. It was not plain and obvious that Teva has no reasonable cause of action since the claim raises complex issues of statutory interpretation of Subsection 6(1) in the context of a new regulatory scheme. The court also declined to strike out Teva's allegations that the SNDS relates to the 20mg product on the evidence.
However, the court struck out Teva's claim under Subsection 6(1) in respect of past and current infringement by the 20mg product. There was no reasonable cause of action as past and current making, constructing, using and selling of this product were not alleged to be – and could not be – "in accordance with" the SNDS as required by the PMNOC Regulations.
Further, the court found that it is plain and obvious that Section 6.02 of the PMNOC Regulations prohibits the joinder of a regular infringement action under the Patent Act with an action pursuant to Subsection 6(1) of the PMNOC Regulations. Since Teva's cause of action in respect of past or current infringement by Glatect 20mg arises pursuant only to Section 55 of the Patent Act, its inclusion as part of Teva's Subsection 6(1) action was clearly prohibited and accordingly struck as an abuse of process. Teva can assert this cause of action as part of a separate proceeding.
For further information on this topic please contact Lynn Ing at Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh by telephone (+1 416 593 5514) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). The Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh website can be accessed at www.smart-biggar.ca.
(1) Teva Canada v Pharmascience Inc, 2019 FC 595.
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.