Ça suffit?

La cause Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited, 2007 FC 596, (June 5, 2007) concerne un ordre de prohibition sous le Réglement sur les médicaments brevetés demandant à la Cour d’émettre un avis de conformité à Novopharm Ltée en relation à des tablettes d’olanzapine.

Le juge a statué entre autres que Lilly n’a pas su démontrer que l’ allégation de Novopharm, a l’effet que le mémoire descriptif du brevet canadien 2,041,113 était insuffisant, était injustifiée.

Le juge établie des critères pour déterminer la “suffisance” d’un mémoire descriptif dans le cas de brevets de sélection.

[139] Thus, in considering the law as to sufficiency in regard to selection patents, the following may be concluded:

1. A valid selection patent may be obtained where the invention lies in selecting a member or members from a previously disclosed group where the member or members selected possess a particular advantage not previously to be found or predicted in a large number of members of the class by a person skilled in the art.

2. The advantage may also be a disadvantage to be avoided.

3. The advantage must be clearly set out in the specification. A statement that the selected group possesses advantages or lack of disadvantages is not in itself sufficient; the advantage must be plainly and fully set out in sufficient detail so as to enable a person skilled in the art to know and appreciate what they are.”

Dans le cas du brevet ‘113:

[162] I find that the ‘113 patent fails to provide sufficient disclosure in its specification as to the invention, if any, in selecting olanzapine from a previously disclosed group of compounds. The prior art British Patents says that the whole class of compounds to be useful in treating central nervous system disorders. The invention in selecting olanzapine is the so called “surprising and unexpected” properties of olanzapine in “comparison with flumezapine and other related compounds”. No such comparison is made anywhere in the ‘113 patent. No data was given. We are left only with rhetoric such as “high level of efficiency” and “mild and transient” and “lower” side effects. The puzzling and scant mention of a dog study refers only to ethyl olanzapine and tells nothing of flumezapine or other compounds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *