Plavix case settled before Supreme Court of Canada hearing

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Plavix case settled before Supreme Court of Canada hearing

A case that was expected to provide guidance on Canada's "promise" doctrine of utility and the test for sound prediction of utility has been settled a day before it was due to be argued at a Supreme Court hearing

plavix.jpg

On November 3, Apotex discontinued its appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the validity of Sanofi-Aventis' patent claiming clopidogrel bisulfate, which is marketed as Plavix. As a result, the Supreme Court hearing scheduled for November 4 has been cancelled.

Plavix is used to prevent blood clots after a heart attack or stroke.

Observers were hoping the case would provide some certainty around the scope of the utility requirement. In an amicus brief in the case, AIPPI noted that following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in AZT in 2002 and Viagra in 2012 “there has been uncertainty with respect to the precise scope of the utility requirement under Canadian law and in particular the extent to which the utility of a patented invention should be disclosed or supported in the patent specification.”

In AZT, the Court stated that utility must either be demonstrated or be a sound prediction based on information and expertise available at the filing date. In Viagra, the Court declined to decide the scope of any disclosure requirement associated with “sound prediction”. The brief stated that this “remains an open question in the jurisprudence of this Court, and an area of significant uncertainty in Canadian law”.

Other organisations that filed briefs in the case include BIOTECanada, Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association and FICPI.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article