Kirin-Amgen Inc. et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., (2000) 267 N.R. 150 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Isaac and Sharlow, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 20, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 267 N.R. 150 (FCA)

Kirin-Amgen v. Hoffmann-La Roche (2000), 267 N.R. 150 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. FE.019

Hoffmann-La Roche Limited/Hoffmann-La Roche Limitée (formerly Boehringer Mannheim Canada Ltd./Ltée (appellant) v. Kirin-Amgen Inc. and Janssen-Ortho Inc. (respondents)

(A-155-99)

Indexed As: Kirin-Amgen Inc. et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Isaac and Sharlow, JJ.A.

December 20, 2000.

Summary:

Two companies sued Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. for patent infringement, arguing that Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. distributing RE­CORMON in Canada infringed the two companies' patent. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. argued that the patent's wording was vague and uncertain and failed to meet the require­ments in ss. 34(1)(e) and 34(2) of the Patent Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 163 F.T.R. 161, held that Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. in­fringed the patent, which was valid, and ordered an injunc­tion preventing Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. from marketing, selling or using that product. The two com­panies' damages or accounting of profits was ordered if the remedies became relevant. Hoffmann ap­pealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1026

The specification and claims - Construc­tion of a patent - General - Two com­panies sued Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. for patent infringement - The trial judge allowed the action, holding that the patent should be construed as of the date it was issued - Hoffmann appealed, asserting, inter alia, that since a patent must allow a per­son skilled in the particular art of science to "use the invention as successfully as the inventor could at the time of his inven­tion", the only appropriate time for con­struing the patent was at the time of the application - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed this ground - The court dis­cussed and interpreted Supreme Court of Canada decisions regarding when a patent should be construed - See paragraphs 10 to 12.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1128

The specification and claims - The descrip­tion - Sufficiency of disclosure - Two companies sued Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. for infringing its patent by selling RE­COR­MON in Canada - Hoffmann argued that the wording "higher molecu­lar weight on SDS-PAGE than human urinary EPO" was vague and ambiguous and ther­efore was invalid for failing to meet the require­ments of ss. 34(1)(e) and 34(2) of the Patent Act - The trial judge held that there was suffi­cient disclo­sure after apply­ing the test of a skilled person in the "art" - Hoffmann appealed, asserting that the "human urinary EPO" was not sufficiently described - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - There was suffi­cient evidence before the trial judge for her to reach the conclusion that she did - See paragraphs 13 to 16.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1128

The specification and claims - The descrip­tion - Sufficiency of disclosure - Two companies sued Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. for infringing its patent - Hoffmann asserted that the patent claim was vague because: uEPO was not readily available so com­parative testing to rhEPO could be per­formed to determine if there was patent infringement; there was no description of the type of uEPO that was to be compared to an allegedly infringing rhEPO; there was no standard uEPO; and the degree of purity, the purification process and the potency of the uEPO to be used was not specified - The trial judge held that the patent was not vague - Hoffmann appealed, asserting, inter alia, that there was not sufficient human urinary EPO available to enable a person skilled in the art to deter­mine infringement - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed this argument - See paragraphs 18 to 19.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1128.2

The specification and claims - The de­scrip­tion - Ambiguity - [See both Patents of Inven­tion - Topic 1128 ].

Cases Noticed:

Allied Signal Inc. v. Du Pont Canada Inc. and Complax Corp. (1995), 184 N.R. 113; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 417 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

Burton Parsons Chemicals Inc. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd. et al., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 555; 3 N.R. 553; 17 C.P.R.(2d) 97; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 711, consd. [paras. 10, 11].

Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623; 97 N.R. 185; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 223; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 257, consd. [para. 11].

Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Noranda Mines Ltd., [1947] Ex. C.R. 306, refd to. [para. 12].

Unilever plc v. Procter & Gamble Inc. (1995), 184 N.R. 378; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 499 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lister v. Norton Brothers & Co. (1886), 3 R.P.C. 197 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Western Electric Co. v. Baldwin Interna­tional Ltd., [1934] S.C.R. 94, refd to. [para. 16].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504; 35 N.R. 390; 122 D.L.R.(3d) 203; 56 C.P.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 16].

TRW Inc. v. Walbar of Canada Inc. (1991), 132 N.R. 161; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 176 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Robinson's Settlement Gant v. Hobbs, [1912] 1 Ch. 717 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Esso Petroleum Co. v. Southport Corp., [1956] A.C. 218 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23].

Glisic v. Canada, [1988] 1 F.C. 731; 80 N.R. 39 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Prêt-A-Porter Orly Ltd. v. Canada (1994), 176 N.R. 149 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Du Pont Canada Inc. v. Glopak Inc. (1998), 146 F.T.R. 301; 81 C.P.R.(3d) 44 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Peel (Sir Robert) Ship, Re (1880), 4 Asp. M.L.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tram­ways Co., [1919] S.C. (H.L.) 35, refd to. [para. 26].

Ship Hontestroom v. Ship Sagaporack, [1927] A.C. 37 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Powell v. Streatham Manor Nursing Home, [1935] A.C. 243 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Watt (or Thomas) v. Thomas, [1947] A.C. 484 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Prudential Trust Co. v. Forseth, [1960] S.C.R. 210, refd to. [para. 26].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 465; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 204; 27 C.C.L.I. 51, refd to. [para. 26].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193; [1994] 2 W.W.R. 609; 18 C.C.L.T.(2d) 209; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 87 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shakespeare, William, Othello, Pt. III, c. iii, p. 155 [para. 33].

Counsel:

Roger T. Hughes, Q.C., John P. Nelligan and Stephen M. Lane, for the appellant;

Donald M. Cameron, R. Scott MacKen­drick and Allyson J. Whyte, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Aird & Berlis, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 8 and 9, 2000, before Stone, Isaac and Sharlow, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On December 20, 2000, at Ottawa, Ontario, Stone, J.A., delivered the following judg­ment for the Court of Appeal.