|
is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure requirements for a patent in Canada. ==Background== While testing the compound sildenafil on patients suffering from angina, Pfizer observed that some patients experienced spontaneous erections. Consequently, Pfizer carried out a clinical study to test the effects of sildenafil on patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). The study showed that sildenafil was effective at treating ED. Pfizer then proceeded to obtain Patent 2,163,446 for the use of a range of compounds for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, even though sildenafil was the only compound in the patent that had been shown to be effective in doing so. The patent contained a number of claims: : * Claim 1 sets out a formula that covers 260 quintillion compounds. : * Claims 2 to 5 are for successively smaller ranges of compounds of the formula, with claim 5 being narrowed down to a range of nine compounds. : * Claims 6 and 7 relate to a single compound each, of which Claim 7 relates to sildenafil. : * However, the patent application did not disclose that the compound that works is found in Claim 7, or that the remaining compounds in the patent had not been found to be effective in treating ED. The patent disclosure states that there are "especially preferred" compounds and lists nine of those compounds. Included in the list of nine is sildenafil. The patent adds that "patient studies conducted thus far have confirmed that one of the especially preferred compounds induces penile erection in impotent males". Novopharm (later renamed Teva Canada), a generic drug manufacturer, filed an Abbreviated New Drug Submission with Health Canada in December 2006 to allow for the manufacture of a generic version of sildenafil. Pfizer applied to the Federal Court for an order under the ''Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations'', prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Novopharm for a generic version of Viagra until the Pfizer patent expired in 2014.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Court Index and Docket / Recorded Entry(ies) for T-1566-07 )〕 In its defence, Novopharm alleged that the patent was invalid for obviousness, lack of utility, and insufficiency of disclosure so that the generic version of Viagra should immediately be allowed on the Canadian market. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Teva Canada Ltd v Pfizer Canada Inc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|