Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2005 122(24):855-882; doi:10.1093/rpc/2005rpc34
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2005] R.P.C. 34

SANOFI-SYNTHELABO CANADA INC v APOTEX INC

Federal Court (Canada)

(Shore J.): February 21–25 and March 21, 20051

[2005] R.P.C. 34

Patent—Canada—Clopidogrel bisulfate—Presumption of validity—Burden of proof—Gillette defence—Anticipation—Whether specific compound anticipated if falling within previously known class—Obviousness—English "worth a try" approach not applicable in Canada—Whether claim for dextro-rotatory isomer invalid over prior disclosure of racemate—Whether unexpectedly non-hygroscopic bisulfate salt patentable—Double patenting of "same invention" or obviousness type—Order to prohibit Minister of Health issuing notice of compliance until expiry of patent.

Key Words: Burden of proof • Canada • Compliance • Novelty • Patents • Pharmaceuticals • Validity

1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.