As previously reported, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed two decisions relating to paliperidone palmitate (Janssen’s INVEGA SUSTENNA), finding in a summary trial that each of Pharmascience and Apotex would induce infringement of Janssen’s patent. 

In the Apotex case, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Apotex’s argument that prescribing practices must be altered due to Apotex’s activities, as even if prescribing practices remained unchanged, activities by patients would be infringing once the product was sourced from Apotex. The Federal Court relied on several instances in the Apotex product monograph to support its finding of influence and was entitled to conclude that inducement would occur.

In the Pharmascience case, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Pharmascience’s argument that since one of the doses that was part of the claimed dosage regimen would only be sourced from Janssen, Pharmascience’s activities would be licensed.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Apotex and Pharmascience’s applications for leave to appeal (Docket Nos. 41162 and 41164).

[View source.]