***Pour les praticiens de la propriété intellectuelle
La cause Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited 2010 FCA 19 concerne le brevet canadien no. 2,041,113 délivré en 1998 qui caractérise l’olanzapine comme une sélection de la calsse du brevet no. 1,075,687 délivré en 1980. Plus spécifiquement, il s’agit d’un appel où la question suivante est posée:
« les conditions d’un brevet de sélection valide constituent-elles un motif indépendant pour constester la validiter d’un brevet? »
Selon la juge:
« …a challenge directed to a determination that the conditions for a selection patent have not been met does not constitute an independent basis upon which to attack the validity of a patent. Rather, the conditions for a valid selection patent serve to characterize the patent and accordingly inform the analysis for the grounds of validity set out in the Act : novelty, obviousness, sufficiency and utility. In short, a selection patent is vulnerable to attack on any of the grounds set out in the Act. I arrive at this conclusion for a variety of reasons. «
Concernant l’utilité, la juge ajoute:
« Ultimately, for the purpose of utility regarding a selection patent, the question to be determined is whether, as of the date of filing, the patentee had sufficient information upon which to base the promise. In an infringement action, the patentee benefits from the presumption of validity (s. 43(2) of the Act) and the alleged infringer bears the onus of demonstrating that the patentee did not have sufficient information upon which to base the promise. «