Miles Hastie

Apotex appealed a prohibition order preventing the Minister of Health from issuing a notice of compliance for its generic version of Plavix.

Apotex alleged that Sanofi's selection patent for clopidogrel bisulfate was invalid on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness, and double patenting.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, clarifying the tests for anticipation and obviousness in Canadian patent law.

The Court adopted a two-step approach for anticipation (prior disclosure and enablement) and a four-step approach for obviousness, including a flexible 'obvious to try' consideration.

The Court found the selection patent was not anticipated, not obvious, and did not constitute double patenting.

Apotex sought a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to market a generic version of AstraZeneca's drug Losec 20, comparing its product to the 1989 version of the drug.

AstraZeneca had withdrawn Losec 20 from the market in 1996 but subsequently listed two new patents against it.

The Minister of Health issued the NOC to Apotex without requiring it to address the new patents, as Apotex's product did not use the new technology.

AstraZeneca applied for judicial review.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, a generic manufacturer is only required to address patents relevant to the innovator product actually copied.

Since Apotex did not claim bioequivalence to the technology in the after-issued patents, it was not subject to the 24-month statutory freeze for those patents.