Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd.
full-case-name=Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd.
heard-date=?
decided-date=?
citations= [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153
history=none
ruling=
ratio=
SCC=2001-2002
Unanimous=Binnie J.
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=

"Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd.", [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the requirement a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturers Novopharm and Apotex to declare Glaxo Wellcome's patent for AZT, an AIDS-fighting drug, invalid.

The generic manufacturers claimed that the patent did not satisfy the utility requirement. Justice Binnie, for the Court, considered the doctrine of sound prediction to determine whether the invention was useful on the day that it was filed. There are three elements. First, there must be a factual basis for the prediction at the date that it was filed. Second, the inventor must have a sound line of reasoning from which the desired result can be inferred from the factual basis. Third, there must be proper disclosure. Binnie found that all three requirements were satisfied.

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)

External links

*
* [http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/src/shtml/2001/pub/v1/2001fc27625.shtml text of the Federal Court of Appeal decision]