Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., (1994) 88 F.T.R. 260 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 14, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 88 F.T.R. 260 (TD)

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (1994), 88 F.T.R. 260 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Merck & Co. Inc. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc. (plaintiffs) v. Apotex Inc. (defendant)

(T-2408-91)

Indexed As: Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

December 14, 1994.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for various relief for patent infringement. The defendant counterclaimed for declarations that the plaintiffs' patent was invalid.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the plaintiffs' action and dismissed the counterclaim.

Patents of Invention - Topic 5

General - Nature and purpose of grant of patent - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the granting of a patent, by which the inventor had an exclusive right to exploit his invention for a period of time, was based upon the exchange of that exclusive right for the complete disclosure to the public of the invention and the way it operated - See paragraph 118.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1001

The specification and claims - General - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the date of significance respecting a patent applicant's ability to meet the specification requirements under s. 34 of the Patent Act was the date at the time the patent issued - See paragraph 120.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1126

The specification and claims - The description - General - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the description of a patent must be sufficiently complete and accurate to enable a workman, skilled in the art to which the invention relates, to construct or use the invention when the period of the monopoly has expired - It must meet two conditions, namely, it must describe the nature of the invention and it must define the way it is produced or built or how it is put into operation - A failure of the first condition invalidates the patent for ambiguity while a failure to meet the second invalidates it for insufficiency - See paragraph 118.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1532

Grounds of invalidity - Want of subject matter - Method of medical treatment - The plaintiffs' patent for pharmaceuticals included the claimed invention of certain compounds - One compound, combined with an acceptable carrier into tablets or liquid, provided a composition dispensed as a prescription drug - The patent included claims for the compounds, the compositions including the compounds and for their use - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the use and composition claims were valid, notwithstanding they did not include an element of inventiveness other than that derived from the compounds included for the use specified in each claim - The composition claims met the descriptive specifications in s. 34 of the Patent Act - The patent did not claim a medical treatment and the claims were not redundant - See paragraphs 83 to 114, 131 to 133.

Patents of Invention - Topic 1533

Grounds of invalidity - Want of subject matter - Substances prepared by chemical processes and intended for medicine - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1532 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 1584

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of "inventive ingenuity" - Chemical processes - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 1532 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 1584

Grounds of invalidity - Lack of "inventive ingenuity" - Chemical processes - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that claims for compounds and claims for compositions of those compounds in or with a carrier could coexist, as valid claims, within the same patent - "If the composition claims include no inventive step aside from that included in the compound already claimed and if they are not ... necessary in order to embody in a practical form, the invention claimed in a use, or if they fail to meet the statutory requirements for specifications under s. 34 of the Patent Act, then the composition claims were invalid" - See paragraph 108.

Patents of Invention - Topic 3010

Infringement of patent - Defences - Purchase prior to issue of patent - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the benefit of s. 56 of the Patent Act as a defence may not be claimed by a person judged to be disentitled to claim the immunity on equitable principles, because of his own dishonest conduct - The court held that in cases where there was breach of confidence arising from violation of an agreement or where reliance on s. 56 would smack of fraud in an ongoing relationship between the parties, equitable principles may preclude reliance on s. 56 - Conduct of that sort required clear evidence - See paragraphs 68 to 69.

Patents of Invention - Topic 3010

Infringement of patent - Defences - Purchase prior to issue of patent - The defendant pleaded that its pharmaceutical tablets were produced from bulk product made in Canada before the plaintiffs' patent was granted - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 56 of the Patent Act did not protect the defendant where, after the grant of patent, it manufactured or altered the form of the patented product, and produced tablets - Neither did s. 56 provide immunity respecting (1) bulk shipments not refinished or purified and dried, tested and found to meet acceptable standards of the manufacturer when delivered to the defendant or (2) bulk product received on consignment from a licencee of the plaintiffs after issue of the patent but manufactured into tablets after the licence terminated - See paragraphs 32 to 66, 75 to 82.

Cases Noticed:

Reeves Brothers Inc. v. Toronto Quilting & Embroidery Ltd. (1978), 43 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (T.D.), consd. [para. 41].

Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., [1970] S.C.R. 833; 62 C.P.R.(2d) 223; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 210, consd. [para. 42].

Diamond Shamrock Co. v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (1982), 66 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 45].

Teledyne Industries Inc. and Teledyne Industries Canada Ltd. v. Lido Industrial Products Ltd. (1981), 39 N.R. 561; 57 C.P.R.(2d) 29 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Zeneca Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1994), 55 C.P.R.(3d) 10 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 48].

Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. (1994), 175 N.R. 334 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Victor Sporting Goods Co. v. Wilson (Harold A.) Co. (1904), 7 O.L.R. 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (1969), 57 C.P.R. 155 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

Paterson Electronic Die Co. v. Plastiseal Inc. (1972), 8 C.P.R.(2d) 222 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (1974), 2 N.R. 474; 14 C.P.R.(2d) 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Peterson Electronic Die Co. - see Paterson Electronic Die Co.

Vandeweghe v. Hallman & Sable (1927), 33 O.W.N. 110 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Stephenson v. Babiy Motors Ltd. et al., [1978] 5 W.W.R. 645 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Unipak Cartons Ltd. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1956-60] Ex. C.R. 396, refd to. [para. 69].

Diversified Products Corp. and Brown Fitzpatrick Lloyd Patent Ltd. v. Tye-Sil Corp. (1991), 125 N.R. 218; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Rubbermaid (Can.) Ltd. v. Tucker Plastic Products Ltd. (1972), 8 C.P.R.(2d) 6 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 85].

Rohm & Haas Co. v. Commissioner of Patents (1959), 30 C.P.R. 113 (Ex. Ct.), consd. [para. 90].

Commissioner of Patents v. Farbwerke Hoechst, [1964] S.C.R. 49; 41 C.P.R. 9, consd. [para. 91].

Sandoz Patents Ltd. v. Gilcross Ltd. et al., [1974] S.C.R. 1336; 8 C.P.R.(2d) 210, consd. [para. 92].

Agripat S.A. v. Commissioner of Patents (1977), 52 C.P.R.(2d) 229 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 93].

Shell Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Patents (1980), 36 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 94].

Shell Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 536; 44 N.R. 541; 67 C.P.R.(2d) 1, dist. [para. 95].

Shell Canada Ltd. Patent Application, Re (1986), 28 C.P.R.(3d) 213 (Patent A.B. and Commissioner), refd to. [para. 105].

Tennessee Eastman Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1974] S.C.R. 111; 8 C.P.R.(2d) 202, affing. (1970), 62 C.P.R. 117 (Ex. Ct.), not appld. [para. 111].

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents (1986), 67 N.R. 121; 9 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 113].

Regents of the University of Minnesota Patent Application, Re (1988), 29 C.P.R.(3d) 42 (Patent A.B. and Commissioner), dist. [para. 113].

Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623; 97 N.R. 185; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 118].

Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Noranda Mines Ltd., [1947] Ex. C.R. 306, revd. [1950] S.C.R. 37; 12 C.P.R. 99, affd. (1952), 15 C.P.R. 133 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 118].

Omark Industries (1960) Ltd. v. Gouger Saw Chain Co. (1964), 45 C.P.R. 169 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 127].

Societé des usines chimiques Rhone-Poulenc v. Gilbert (Jules R.) Ltd., [1968] S.C.R. 950; 55 C.P.R. 207; 69 D.L.R.(2d) 353, dist. [para. 130].

Apotex Inc. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd. (1989), 99 N.R. 198; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), affing. (1987), 11 F.T.R. 161; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 217 (T.D.), dist. [para. 130].

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, dist. [para. 130].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 2 [para. 111]; sect. 34 [paras. 86, 103, 108, 115-117, 120, 129, 132]; sect. 34(2) [paras. 125, 133]; sect. 39(1) [paras. 89, 101]; sect. 43, sect. 44, sect. 45 [para. 84]; sect. 56 [paras. 9, 14, 19-20, 22, 32-33, 36-42, 45, 48-52, 54, 56, 58-62, 65-70, 73-74, 80, 136].

Patent Act Amendment Act, S.C. 1987, c. 41, sect. 14 [para. 89]; sect. 22 [para. 37].

Patent Act Amendment Act, S.C. 1993, c. 2, sect. 12 [para. 75]; sect. 12(1) [para. 82]; sect. 12(2) [para. 78]; sect. 55.2 [para. 6].

Patent Act Amendment Act Regulations (Can.), Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, generally [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Patent Office, Manual of Patent Office Practice (1990), s. 10.02.02 [para. 105].

Counsel:

G. Alexander Macklin, Q.C., Emmanuel Manolakis and Hélène D'Iorio, for the plaintiffs;

H.B. Radomski and Malcolm S. Johnston, Q.C., for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

Goodman & Goodman, Toronto, Ontario, and Malcolm Johnston & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This action was heard on March 28 to 31, 1994, and April 11 to 16, 1994, at Ottawa, Ontario, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 14, 1994.