CanadaPatentBlog

ABBOTT LABORATORIES and ABBOTT LABORATORIES LIMITED and THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and RATIOPHARM (A DIVISION OF RATIOPHARM INC.).

This post is about the meaning of “consists essentially of” as interpreted by a recent Canadian decision. This decision is not necessarily correct and is being appealed to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. But the logic of the trial judge shows the impact of the policy of “purposive interpretation” under Canadian, and possibly UK, patent law. Read the rest of this entry »

Ever since the US Supreme Court decision in the eBay case the patent community has speculated as to the extent that trial judges would commence to exercise their discretion to deny injunctions to plaintiffs who succeed in proving patent infringement.  A recent decision in the US Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas may represent one direction for the future. Read the rest of this entry »

Summary infringement decision, United States Federal District Court for the Central District of California, August 1, 2006

The following is a summary of an interesting decision in the pharmaceutical-generic universe, according to a Biovail Corporation news release of August 2nd, 2006.

The basic patent on the essential drug, bupropion, represented by “Wellbutrin” (Biovail trademark) expired some considerable time ago. It was originally patented by Burroughs-Wellcome (later Glaxo-Wellcome,) in 1974. A competing drug, used to control tobacco craving, is “Zyban”. Biovail Corporation of Mississauga, Ontario, is particularly active in developing and patenting pre-existing drug formulations in new drug delivery formats.

The Biovail patent as reported in the Biovail news bulletin of August 2, 2006 concerns an extended release version of the antidepressant drug “bupropion”, sold by Biovail as “Wellbutrin XL”. Wellbutrin XL has supported the granting of a fresh US patent to Biovail. This additional patent is not directed to the original drug, but to a new composition in tablet form which controls the release of the drug into the bloodstream of a user. The granting of fresh patents for improved drug delivery is not uncommon in the drug industry. In this case, the granting of the further improvement patent for “Wellbutrin XL” may have been particularly justifiable because bupropion in concentrated dosage showed a tendency to invoke seizures. Read the rest of this entry »

Rarely, a dissenting judicial opinion is more significant than the decision of the majority. This is just such a case.

Many patent professionals have felt that the United States patent system was on trial when the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the concurrent Trial and Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit decisions upholding LabCorp’s patent claims to a method for identifying a vitamin deficiency in a human being. The majority of the Supreme Court in its June 22, 2006 decision declined to make a ruling, stating that they had granted certiorari “improvidently”. Consequently the lower court decisions will stand. But the dissent by three Supreme Court justices cannot be ignored. In fact, this dissent may portend major upheavals in the US patent system in the future.

Before reviewing the dissent, which constitutes 98% of reasons provided in the Supreme Court decision, it must be observed that US patent law is on the brink of major reforms. The US patent office is experiencing a management crisis. Bills have been tabled before Congress to amend the law in ways that are as fundamental as the amendments of 1836. And an outcry is growing as to the over reaching impact of patents in such newly recognized fields of business methods and genetics. Read the rest of this entry »