The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal recently considered whether ‘invalid selection’ can be an independent ground for invalidating selection patents. Katie Wang looks at the implications.
The conclusion is not surprising: a selection patent will not receive special treatment. Its validity is vulnerable to attack on any of the grounds provided in the Patent Act. Accordingly, a determination that the conditions for a select patent have not been met does not constitute an independent basis upon which to attack the validity of the patent (Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v Novopharm Limited).
In this case, Eli Lilly commenced an action for patent infringement against Novopharm with respect to Lilly’s ‘113 patent. The ‘113 patent is a selection patent for the compound olanzapine (sold under the brand name Zyprexa), used to treat schizophrenia.
Novopharm defended the infringement allegation made against it and counterclaimed on the ground that the ‘113 patent was not a valid selection patent. Novopharm’s other grounds included, inter alia, anticipation, double patenting and obviousness.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on firstname.lastname@example.org.
invalid selection, Canada Patent Act, Novopharm, pharmaceuticals