PATENTS
Infringement
Claim and counterclaim with respect to alleged patent infringement—Plaintiff licensee, assignee of patent for exhaust fan apparatus (“Axijet”)—Defendant’s apparatus alleged to infringe “Axijet”—Review, exposition of principles of patent construction—Claims of “Axijet” patent construed—Defendant not infringing “Axijet”—Action dismissed—Counterclaim (dealing with validity of plaintiff’s patent, alleged unfair trade practices) also dismissed.
M.K. Plastics Corp. v. Plasticair Inc. (T-2108-03, 2007 FC 574, Tremblay-Lamer J., judgment dated 30/5/07, 41 pp.)
Appeal from Federal Court’s dismissal (2005 FC 1205) of application under Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, s. 6 for order prohibiting Minister of Health from issuing notice of compliance to respondent Apotex regarding drug product “Apo-quinapril” until expiration of Canadian letters patent numbers 1341330 (′330 patent), 1331615 (′615 patent)—Whether allegation of non-infringement of ′615 patent justified—Whether claims of ′330 patent broader than invention disclosed—Principles governing construction of patents examined—In making, using quinapril hydrochloride acetone solvate, Apotex would infringe ′615 patent—Federal Court erring in treating as determinative question whether invention, parts thereof optimal, misapplied construction of claims to question of whether overly broad—Given patent’s disclosure, expert evidence, state of art, claims of ′330 patent not broader than invention disclosed—Appeal allowed.
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (A-457-05, 2007 FCA 209, Nadon J.A., judgment dated 31/5/07, 59 pp.)