Merck & Co., Inc. v. Pharmascience inc.

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Pharmascience inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2010-05-11
Neutral citation
2010 FC 510
File numbers
T-1476-08
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20100511
Docket: T-1476-08
Citation: 2010 FC 510
Toronto, Ontario, May 11, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
MERCK & CO., INC. AND
MERCK FROSST CANADA LTD.
Applicants
and
PHARMASCIENCE INC. AND
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application brought under the provisions of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 as amended (NOC Regulations). The Applicants are the owner (Merck & Co., Inc.) and Canadian licensee (Merck Frosst Canada Ltd.) of the patent at issue. I will refer to them collectively as Merck. The Respondent Pharmascience Inc. is a generic drug company seeking to gain approval from the other Respondent, the Minister of Health, to market a drug in Canada known as finasteride for the treatment of male baldness.
[2] While the original allegations made by Pharmascience involved several patents and several claims, only one patent, Canadian Patent No. 2,173,457 (the ’457 Patent) and only one claim of that patent, claim 5, remains for determination. The only issue before this Court is whether Pharmascience’s allegation that claim 5 of the ’457 Patent is invalid, on a variety of grounds, is “justified” within the provisions of section 6(2) of the NOC Regulations. For the Reasons that follow I find that the allegation is justified and that the application is dismissed with costs to Pharmascience.
The ’457 Patent and Claim 5
[3] The patent at issue, the ’457 Patent, is entitled “Use of 5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitors and Compositions for Treating Androgenic Alopecia”. It is governed by the provisions of the post-October 1, 1989 version of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.P-4, sometimes called the “new” Patent Act, since the application for that patent was filed in Canada after that date namely, on October 11, 1994. The patent application was made available to the public on April 20, 1995, the publication date. The patent was issued and granted to the Applicant Merck & Co. Inc. on March 23, 1999. The term of the patent expires twenty (20) years after the Canadian filing date, that is, on October 11, 2014.
[4] The only claim of the ’457 Patent at issue is claim 5. It is a “dependant” claim since it is drafted in such a way so as to incorporate the provisions of other claims. In this case one must read each of claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 so as to understand claim 5. I repeat each of those claims:
1. The use of a 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor for the preparation of a medicament adapted for oral administration useful for the treatment of androgenic alopecia in a person and wherein the dosage amount is about 0.05 to 3.0 mg.
2. The use of claim 1, wherein the 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor is 17β-(N-tert-butylcarbamoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-3-one.
3. The use of claim 2, wherein the dosage is about 0.05 to 1.0 mg.
4. The use of claim 3, wherein the dosage is about 1.0 mg.
5. The use of claim 4, wherein the androgenic alopecia is male pattern baldness.
[5] To incorporate all the references to the prior claims into claim 5 it would read:
5. The use of 17β-(N-tert-butylcarbamoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-3-one for the preparation of a medicament adapted for oral administration useful for the treatment of male pattern baldness in a person and wherein the dosage amount is about 1.0 mg.
[6] Fortunately, the descriptive part of the ’457 Patent at page 2, lines 9-10 uses the word “finasteride” in place of the long complex chemical description set out above , therefore claim 5 can be written as follows:
5. The use of finasteride for the preparation of a medicament adapted for oral administration useful for the treatment of male pattern baldness in a person and wherein the dosage is about 1.0 mg.
[7] This claim is drafted in a peculiar style that originated in Europe called a “Swiss” claim. I will address the “Swiss” style of this claim later in these Reasons.
The ’457 Patent
[8] The ’457 Patent is to be read from the viewpoint of a person skilled in the art to which it pertains as of the publication date, April 20, 1995. It must be remembered that statements made by the patentee, such as what constitutes the prior art, are to be treated as binding admissions by the patentee (Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited, 2007 FC 596, 58 C.P.R. (4th) 214 at para. 142 (FC); Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc. (1997), 76 C.P.R. (3d) 150 at page 186 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; Shire Biochem Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2008 FC 538, 67 C.P.R. (4th) 94 at para. 24; Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited, 2005 FC 1299, 42 C.P.R. (4th) 502 at para. 78).
[9] The patent begins at page 1 with a general statement as to the field of the invention. It is the treatment of a condition called androgenic alopecia (called “aa” by the English Courts), including male pattern baldness (sometimes referred to in these proceedings by the acronym MPB) with compounds described as 5-alpha reductase isozyme 2 inhibitors (sometimes referred to as 5α-reductase:
The present invention is concerned with the treatment of androgenic alopecia, including male pattern baldness, with compounds that are 5-alpha reductase Isozyme 2 inhibitors.
[10] At pages 1 and 2 the patent describes the background to the invention with particular discussion as to steroids and hormonal effects. The physical manifestation described as benign prostatic hyperplasia is often referred to by the acronym BPH in these proceedings:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Certain undesirable physiological manifestations, such as acne vulgaris, seborrhoea, female hirsutism, androgenic alopecia which includes female and male pattern baldness, and benign prostatic hyperplasia, are the result of hyperandrogenic stimulation caused by an excessive accumulation of testosterone (PT”) or similar androgenic hormones in the metabolic system. Early attempts to provide a chemotherapeutic agent to counter the undesirable results of hyperandrogenicity resulted in the discovery of several steroidal antiandrogens having undesirable hormonal activities of their own. The estrogens, for example, not only counteract the effect of the androgens but have a feminizing effect as well. Non-steroidal antiandrogens have also been developed, for example, 4’-nitro-3’-trifluoromethylisobutyranilide. See Neri, et al., Endocrinol 1972, 91 (2). However, these products, though devoid of hormonal effects, compete with all natural androgens for receptor sites, and hence have a tendency to feminize a male host or the male fetus of a female host and/or initiate feed-back effects which would cause hyperstimulation of the testes.
[11] The next paragraph in the background description portion of the ’457 Patent identifies 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) as being something formed in target organs such as the prostate by a 5α-reductase. Inhibition of 5α-reductase in those organs will have a beneficial effect. It is noted that these are at least two types of 5α-reductase, called type 1 and type 2. In these proceedings, there is much discussion as to interaction with type 1 and type 2 5α-reductase and where in the body such types may occur:
The principal mediator or androgenic activity in some target organs, e.g. the prostate, is a 5α-dihydrotestosterone (“DHT”), formed locally in the target organ by the action of testosterone-5α-reductase. Inhibitors of testosterone-5α-reductase will serve to prevent or lessen symptoms of hyperandrogenic stimulation in these organs. See especially United States Patent No. 4,377,584 assigned to Merck & co., Inc., issued March 22, 1983. It is now known that a second 5α-reductase isozyme exists, which interacts with skin tissues, especially in scalp tissues. See, e.g., G. Harris, et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 89, pp. 10787-10791 (Nov. 1992). The isozyme that principally interacts in skin tissues is conventionally designated as 5α-reductase 1 (or 5α-reductase type 1), while the isozyme that principally interacts within the prostatic tissues in designated as 5α-reductase 2 (or 5α-reductase type 2).
The above passage makes reference to a Harris paper which was extensively discussed by the experts and in argument. The patent says that Harris says that type 1 reductase occurs in skin tissues and type 2 in the prostate.
[12] The next paragraph in the background portion of the ’457 patent is an important acknowledgement by the patentee as to what constitutes the prior art. The patentee acknowledges that the drug in question, finasteride, is a known drug and has been commercialized for use as a 5α-reductase inhibitor to treat prostatic conditions. Utility of that drug in treating androgenic alopecia (aa) is acknowledged. The paragraph states, however, that dosages exemplified in the prior art ranged from 5 to 2000 mg. per patient per day:
Finasteride (17β-(N-tert-butylcarbamoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-one), which is marketed by Merck & co., Inc. under the tradename PROSCAR®, is an inhibitor of 5α-reductase 2 and is known to be useful for the treatment of hyperandrogenic conditions. See e.g., U.S. Patent No. 4,760,071. Finasteride is currently marketed in the United States and worldwide for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finasteride’s utility in the treatment of androgenic alopecia and prostatic carcinoma is also disclosed in the following documents: EP 0 285,382, published 5 October 1988; EP 0 285 383,
published 5 October 1988; Canadian Patent no. 1,302,277; and Canadian patent no. 1,302,276. The specific dosages exemplified in the above-noted disclosures varied from 5 to 2000 mg. per patient per day.
[13] The last paragraph in the background section of the ’457 Patent serves two functions. First, it acknowledges the desirability of administering the drug in the lowest dosage possible. Second, it describes the invention as the “surprisingly unexpected” discovery that a low daily dosage of a 5α-reductase inhibitor is particularly useful in treating androgenic alopecia:
In the treatment of androgenic alopecia, which includes both female and male pattern baldness, and other hyperandrogenic conditions, it would be desirable to administer the lowest dosage possible of a pharmaceutical compound to a patient and still maintain therapeutic efficacy. Applicants have surprisingly unexpectedly discovered that a low daily dosage of a 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor is particularly useful in the treatment of androgenic alopecia. Furthermore, a low daily dosage of a 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor may also be particularly useful in the treatment of the hyperandrogenic conditions of acne vulgaris, seborrhoea, female hirsutism, and polycystic ovary syndrome.
[14] A detailed description of the invention begins at page 35 of the patent. The first three paragraphs at page 3 describe three different “aspects” of the invention – the use of a 5α-reductase inhibitor in dosages from about 0.05 to 3.0 mg., a solid composition of such inhibitor in such dosages, and a pharmaceutical composition of such inhibitor in such dosage. The fourth paragraph describes a “particular embodiment” that tracks the language of the “Swiss” claims. The fifth paragraph simply states that a “particular embodiment” is the use of such inhibitor in such dosages.
The final paragraph on page 3 is a general statement as to the invention being the treatment of conditions such as androgenic alopecia in dosages under 5 mg per day:
-3-
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
In accordance with one aspect of the invention there is provided the use of a 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor for the preparation of a medicament adapted for oral administration useful for the treatment of androgenic alopecia in a person and wherein the dosage amount is about 0.05 to 3.0mg.
In accordance with another aspect of the invention there is
provided a solid composition containing 17β-(N-tert-butylcaramoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-ene-3-one useful for the treatment of androgenic alopecia wherein the dosage is about 0.05 to 3.0 mg.
In accordance with still another aspect of the invention there is provided an anti-androgenic alopecia pharmaceutical composition comprising a 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor in an amount effective to provide a dosage of about 0.05 to 3.0 mg, in association with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
In a particular embodiment of the invention there is provided use of 17β-(N-tert-butylcarbamoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-l-ene-3-one in the manufacture of a medicament providing a dosage of said 5α-androst 1-ene-3-one of 0.05 to 3.0 mg, for the treatment of androgenic alopecia.
In another particular embodiment of the invention there is provided 17β-(N-tert-butylcarbamoyl)-4-aza-5α-androst-l-ene-3-one for use at a dosage of about 0.05 to 3.0 mg in the treatment of androgenic alopecia.
The instant invention is concerned with treating and/or
reversing androgenic alopecia and promoting hair growth, and treating acne vulgaris, seborrhea and female hirsutism. in particular the treat­ment comprises administering to a patient in need of such treatment a 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor in a dosage amount under 5 mgs/day.
[15] The first paragraph on page 3a states that the drug can be administered in dosage amounts ranging from 0.01 to 3.0 mg/day to narrower ranges such as 0.05 to 0.2 mg/day:
In one embodiment of this invention, the 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor is administered in a dosage amount of from 0.01 to 3.0 mgs/day. In one class of this embodiment, the 5α -reductase 2 inhibitor is administered in a dosage amount of from 0.05 to 1.0 mg/day, and in a sub-class of this embodiment, the 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor is administered in dosage amounts of about 0.05 to 0.2 mg/day. Illustrating this subclass are dosage amounts of about 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2 mg/day. Exemplifying the subclass are dosages of 0.05 and 0.2 mg/day. Compounds which are inhibitors of 5α -reductase 2 can be determined by employing the assay described below in Example 3.
[16] There follows from pages 3a to 5 a description as to the chemistry of the drugs and processes for making them. This description is not relevant to these proceedings.
[17] At page 5, the first full paragraph, there is a repetition of the dosage ranges, followed by a statement that the drug can be used in combination with other drugs such as minoxidil. This is important because some prior art, in particular a patent application by Diani, who was working for a competitor of Merck (Upjohn), deal with Upjohn’s drug minoxidil and mixtures of that drug with finasteride. The paragraph ends with a statement that the two drugs can be administered topically or orally or one by one method and the other one by the other method:
. . .
Exemplifying the invention are dosages of 0.05 and 0.2 mg/day. The term "treating androgenic alopecia" is intended to include the arresting and/or reversing of androgenic alopecia, and the promotion of hair growth. Also, a 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor, e.g., finasteride, at a dosage under 5 mgs/day can be used in combination with a potassium channel opener, such as minoxidil or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, for the treatment of androgenic alopecia, includ­ing male baldness. The 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor and the potassium channel opener may both be applied topically, or each agent can be given via different administration routes; for example, the 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor may be administered orally while potassium channel opener may be administered topically.
[18] The paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 5 and over to page 6 states that the drug can be administered in a variety of forms, all said to be known to those of ordinary skill. Tablets can
be scored which, counsel before me agree, means they can be broken into pieces for administration in smaller doses. This point is picked up at the beginning of the last paragraph on page 6:
The present invention also has the objective of providing suitable systemic, oral, parenteral and topical pharmaceutical formulations for use in the treatment of the present invention. The compositions containing 5α-reductase 2 inhibitor compounds as the active ingredient for use in the treatment of the above-noted hyperandrogenic conditions can be administered in a wide variety of therapeutic dosage forms in conventional vehicles for systemic administration. For example, the compounds can be administered in such oral dosage forms as solid or liquid compositions, for example as tablets, capsules (each including timed release and sustained release formulations), pills, powders, granules, elixirs, tinctures, solutions, suspensions, syrups and emulsions. Likewise, they may also be administered in intravenous (both bolus and infusion), intraperitoneal, subcutaneous, topical with or without occlusion, or intramuscular form, all using forms well known to those of ordinary skill in the pharmaceutical arts. For oral administration, for example, the compositions can be provided in the form of scored or unscored tablets containing 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 milligrams of the active ingredient for the symptomatic adjustment of the dosage to the patient to be treated.
. . .
Advantageously, compounds of the present invention may be administered in a single daily dose or the total daily, dosage may be administered in divided doses of two, three or four times daily.
[19] At page 7, the patent acknowledges that dosage regimen can be selected by a physician of ordinary skill having regard to a variety of factors:
The dosage regimen utilizing the compounds of the present invention is selected in accordance with a variety of factors including type, species, age, weight, sex and medical condition of the patient; the severity of the condition to be treated; the route of administration; the renal and hepatic function of the patient; and the particular compound thereof employed. A physician or veterinarian of ordinary skill can readily determine and prescribe the effective amount of the drug required to prevent, counter, arrest or reverse the progress of the condition. Optimal precision in achieving concentration of drug within the range that yields efficacy without toxicity requires a regimen based on the kinetics of the drug's availability to target sites. This involves a consideration of the distribution, equilibrium, and elimination of a drug.
[20] There follows from pages 7 to 9 a discussion as to formulation of the drug which is not relevant to these proceedings.
[21] Commencing at page 9 to the end of the descriptive portion of the patent, five examples are presented. Only example 5 is relevant to these proceedings. Example 1 deals with the preparation of finasteride, as does Example 2. Example 3 deals with the preparation of human 5α-reductase. Example 4 describes a procedure for measuring hair loss - essentially by taking photographs over a
period of time. Example 5 is all that is said in respect of the effect of the administration of finasteride:
EXAMPLE 5
In another test, finasteride was orally administered for 6 weeks to men with male pattern baldness at doses of 0.2 mg/day, 1.0 mg/day and 5.0 mgs/day. The results of this test showed a significant reduction in DHT content in scalp tissue of the test participants.
[22] There is nothing else to tell the reader why it was concluded that a “significant reduction” of DHT (5α -dihydrotestosterone) occurred and at what dosage, whether 0.2 or 1.0 or 5.0mg/day.
[23] The claims follow. I repeat claim 5, as I have redrafted it by incorporating claims 1 to 4 and substituting finasteride for the chemical formula:
5. The use of finasteride for the preparation of a medicament adapted for oral administration useful for the treatment of male pattern baldness in a person and wherein the dosage is about 1.0 mg.
THE ISSUES
[24] The main issue is whether Pharmascience’s allegations as to invalidity of claim 5 of the ’457 Patent are justified within the meaning of section 6(2) of the NOC Regulations. In determining that issue, I must determine the following matters, which I will do in the following order:
1. Burden
2. Evidence
3. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
4. Claim Construction
a) History of a Claims Requirement in Canada
b) History of a Claims Requirement in Great Britain
c) Current State of the Law in Canada
d) Tying it All Together
e) The U.K. and European Decisions as to “Swiss” Claims
f) “Swiss” Claims in Canada
g) Claim Construction – Notice of Allegation
h) Construing Claim 5
5. Method of Medical Treatment
6. Double Patenting
7. Novelty and Obviousness
a) General
b) The ’457 Patent
c) The Prior Art
d) Viewing the Prior Art Through the Eyes of a Person Skilled in the Art
e) Conclusions as to the Evidence Respecting Novelty and Obviousness
f) Novelty
g) Obviousness
8. Sound Prediction/Overbreadth
[25] I am grateful to Counsel for each of the parties for their cooperation and civility throughout this hearing. I am particularly grateful for the concise and organized manner in which their arguments were presented, including the provision of skeleton outlines, compendia and USB electronic storage devices containing the various arguments and evidence, including hyperlinks in some cases. Their conduct and preparation was exemplary. No Counsel participated in these proceedings on behalf of the Minister.
1) Burden
[26] The only issue is that of validity of claim 5 of the ’457 Patent. I considered the issue as to who bears the burden of proof as to validity in the context of proceedings brought under the NOC Regulations several times, including in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (2008), 63 C.P.R. (4th) 406 at para. 58 (FC), and Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2008 FC 11, 69 C.P.R. (4th) 191 at paras. 28 to 33. I adopted the reasoning of Justice Mosley in Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2007 FC 971, 61 C.P.R. (4th) 305. To repeat what I said at paragraph 32 of Pfizer,
2008 FC 11, 69 C.P.R. (4th) 191:
[32] I do not view the reasoning of the two panels of the Federal Court of Appeal to be in substantial disagreement. Justice Mosley of this Court reconciled these decisions in his Reasons in Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2007 FC 971 at paragraphs 44 to 51. What is required, when issues of validity of a patent are raised:
1. The second person, in its Notice of Allegation may raise one or more grounds for alleging invalidity;
2. The first person may in its Notice of Application filed with the Court join issue on any one or more of those grounds;
3. The second person may lead evidence in the Court proceeding to support the grounds upon which issue has been joined;
4. The first person may, at its peril, rely simply upon the presumption of validity afforded by the Patent Act or, more prudently, adduce its own evidence as to the grounds of invalidity put in issue.
5. The Court will weigh the evidence; if the first person relies only on the presumption, the Court will nonetheless weigh the strength of the evidence led by the second person. If that evidence is weak or irrelevant the presumption will prevail. If both parties lead evidence, the Court will weigh all the evidence and determine the matter on the usual civil balance.
6. If the evidence weighed in step 5 is evenly balanced (a rare event), the Applicant (first person) will have failed to prove that the allegation of invalidity is not justified and will not be entitled to the Order of prohibition that it seeks.
[27] In the present case, Pharmascience has made extensive allegations and both parties have led evidence as to the validity of claim 5 of the ’457 patent. Subject to the arguments raised by Merck as to whether Sound Prediction/Overbreadth was raised in the Notice of Allegation, I must decide the issue of validity before me on the weight of the evidence and arguments presented. If that weight is evenly balanced in respect of any allegation, I must find that particular allegation made by Pharmascience to be justified.
2) The Evidence
[28] Each of Merck and Pharmascience led evidence. Merck led the evidence of two persons offered as expert witnesses – Doctor Russell and Doctor Shapiro – with exhibits. Both were cross-examined. Pharmascience led the evidence of two persons also offered as expert witnesses – Doctor Steiner and Doctor Taylor – with exhibits. Again, both were cross-examined. Since these proceedings are conducted by way of an application, all this evidence was led by way of affidavits and only transcripts of the cross-examinations were filed. The Court had no opportunity to observe the witnesses in person; thus there is difficulty in coming to any proper conclusions as to credibility, or whose evidence is to be preferred. To comment more particularly as to these witnesses:
1. For Merck
a) Dr. David Russell is a distinguished professor of molecular genetics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre. He has been extensively involved in research respecting 5α -reductase inhibitors, including being a consultant to Merck in the early 1990’s when the subject matter of the ’457 Patent was being developed. Doctor Russell testified in the Actavis English action, which I will discuss more fully later. That proceeding had many close parallels to the present proceeding. In those proceedings, (Actavis U.K. Limited v. Merck & co. Inc [2007] EWHC 1311 (Ch)) The Trial Judge, Justice Warren, had this to say about Doctor Russell at paragraph 36:
Merck obtained expert evidence from only one expert, Professor Russell. He was, as Mr. Thorley accepts, clear, lucid and well informed. He is clearly a leading authority with perhaps an unrivalled depth of knowledge and experience as a molecular biologist in the field of 5α-reductase. He and his team at the University of Texas were, as Mr. Thorley points out, at the cutting edge of the ongoing investigations into the existence and nature of the 5α-reductase isozymes and privy to unpublished work of all the leading commercial workers in the field. I accordingly take on board the note of caution sounded by Mr. Thorley when he says that care must be taken in attributing the breadth and depth of Professor Russell’s knowledge to the notional scientist with knowledge of a 5α -reductase who would form part of the skilled team which one is required to assume exists. Professor Russell made no claim to any particular expertise in hair biology or in the design of clinical trials, although it would be idle to suggest that he was not generally knowledgeable about both.
Having read Doctor Russell’s affidavit and cross-examination in these proceedings, I agree in general with Justice Warren’s assessment, including the note of caution that Doctor Russell may be “over qualified” when considering his evidence as to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Doctor Russell acknowledges this at paragraph 19 of his affidavit in these proceedings where he states “my own qualifications exceed that of a Skilled Person”, although he goes on to assert that he can, nevertheless, speak from the vantage point of the Skilled Person.
Counsel for Pharmascience drew attention to two places during the cross-examination of Doctor Russell where he gave evidence on relevant matters which were clearly contradictory to evidence that he gave in respect of the same matters at the English trial (cross-examination, pages 125-127 and 148-149). Doctor Russell’s explanation for those inconsistencies namely: that he was tired during the U.K. trial – hardly so because the answers were given early in the U.K. trial – and that his characterization of a prior art scientific paper was coloured by what he perceived to be the differences between Canadian and U.K. law- are not very satisfactory.
Overall, I view Doctor Russell as being a highly qualified scientist dealing in the 5α -reductase inhibitor area at the relevant time, who has perhaps been overstretched in giving evidence on behalf of Merck in two related proceedings.
b) Dr. Jerry Shapiro is a clinical professor at the University of British Columbia in the Department of Dermatology and Skin Care. He has been active in the hair care research and treatment area since 1986. He has written several papers in that area and consulted for a number of organizations, including Merck. I accept his evidence as an expert in the area of dermatology, especially relating to hair.
2. For Pharmascience
a) Dr. Joseph E. Steiner is the Dean and Professor of the College of Health Services at the University of Wyoming. His background is in pharmacy, in which he received a doctorate and practiced in a clinical setting from 1975 to 1997. It appears that the main focus of Doctor Steiner’s work is, I addition to the administrative requirements in being a Dean, in the area of ambulatory care. Doctor Steiner has written a number of review articles in which the publications in a given scientific area are reviewed and presented to the reader as reflecting the state of the art at the time. One such review article in Clinical Pharmacy dealt with the pharmacology, pharmaceutics and clinical use of the drug finasteride as of 1992. While Doctor Steiner lacks the in-depth experience of Merck’s witnesses, I accept his evidence, presented as an expert in reviewing the state of the art respecting drugs, as helpful in the Court’s understanding as to what was known about finasteride in the scientific community as of 1992.
b) Dr. E. Kent Taylor is a medical doctor located in Burlington, Ontario, who has for over 23 years been practicing as a clinical dermatologist. It appears that about ten percent of his practice is directed to hair loss which percentage he says is normal for a practising dermatologist. He has acted as a consultant to Upjohn during the launch of their minoxidil product for the treatment of hair loss, a product that will be more fully discussed later. I accept that Doctor Taylor can provide useful expert evidence to the Court as to the views of a person practicing in the field of hair loss at the relevant time.
[29] Merck’s Counsel strenuously attacks the evidence of Doctors Steiner and Taylor, citing R v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, at paragraph 27, saying that the expert must show “special or peculiar” knowledge before the evidence can be admitted. It was argued that Doctors Steiner and Taylor had no such knowledge.
[30] Pharmascience’s Counsel argued, relying on Regina v. Marguard (1993), 108 D.L.R. (4th) 47 (S.C.C.) at page 78, that “The only requirement for the admission of expert opinion is that the “expert” witness possesses special knowledge and experience going beyond that of the trier of fact.”
[31] I am prepared to admit the evidence of Doctors Steiner and Taylor as expert evidence. Their evidence is material to the issues and goes beyond the knowledge that this Court is expected to have. I do not view Mohan, supra, as requiring superlative or exceptional expertise before such evidence is admissible. The matter can be left to assessment as a matter of weight.
3) Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
[32] The Person of Ordinary Skill is the Art (POSITA) or as such person is called in some countries, Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) is a fictional person used as a measuring stick or guide in certain aspects of patent law just as the “reasonable person” or “man in the Clapham omnibus” has played a role in tort law.
[33] There have been many attempts by Canadian Courts and Courts elsewhere to define a POSITA. The Supreme Court of Canada considered such a person in Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067 at paragraphs 70, 71 and 74 where Binnie J. for the Court wrote
[70] …Someone with Mr. Pielemeier’s connection to the respondents, burdened as he is with inside information, is not a very satisfactory proxy for the “ordinary worker”. He is a skilled addressee but he is not operating on the basis of common knowledge in the trade. The patent claims were not addressed by Whirlpool’s research engineers to their colleagues in Whirlpool’s product development group. The patent claims were necessarily addressed to the wider world of individuals with ordinary skills in the technology of clothes washing machines As Aldous L.J. observed in Beloit Technologies Inc. v. Valmet Paper Machinery Inc., [1997] R.P.C. 489 (Eng. C.A.) at p. 494:
The notional skilled addressee is the ordinary man who may not have the advantages that some employees of large companies may have. The information in a patent specification is addressed to such a man and must contain sufficient details for him to understand and apply the invention. It will only lack an inventive step if it is obvious to such a man. [Emphasis added].
Dickson J. placed the same emphasis on “ordinariness” in Consolboard, supra, at p. 523:
“The persons to whom the specification is addressed are “ordinary workmen”, ordinarily skilled in the art to which the invention relates and possessing the ordinary amount of knowledge incidental to that particular trade. The true interpretation of the patent is to be arrived at by consideration of what a competent workman reading the specification at its date would have understood it to have disclosed and claimed.”
[71] “Ordinariness” will, of course, vary with the subject matter of the patent. Rocket science patents may only be comprehensible to rocket scientists. The problem with Mr Pielemeier is that he could not be a good guide to a common knowledge of “ordinary workers” in the industry because his opinions were predicated on Whirlpool’s in-house knowledge, and he made no bones about that fact.
. . .
[74] …While the hypothetical “ordinary worker” is deemed to be uninventive as part of his fictional personality, he or she is thought to be reasonably diligent in keeping up with advances in the field to which the patent relates. The “common knowledge” of skilled workers undergoes continuous evolution and growth.
[34] The AIPPI (Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriete Intellectuelle) is a politically neutral, non-profit organization, domiciled in Switzerland, which currently has almost 9000 members representing more than 100 countries, including a strong representation of leading practitioners from the Canadian intellectual property bar and agencies. It seeks to develop and improve laws relating to intellectual property. One of the methods which it uses is to pose certain questions to its members. The members in each country will formulate answers which are then submitted for debate and resolution at a general meeting of that organization.
[35] A question put for the meeting to be held in Paris in the fall of this year relates to the best way to define a POSITA. I have been provided with a copy of the submissions made by the Canadian Group of AIPPI for that purpose, in which a number of questions were answered reflecting Canadian law. A summary was given at the end as to what, under Canadian law, a POSITA is understood to be. It reads:
Q.213 Summary
In Canada, the “person of ordinary skill in the art” is the hypothetical person to whom the patent is addressed. This may be a single individual or a group representing different disciplines, depending on the nature of the invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to be unimaginative and uninventive, but at the same time is understood to have an ordinary level of competence and knowledge incidental the field to which the patent relates (i.e. the common general knowledge) and to be reasonably diligent in keeping up with advances. The common general knowledge is that knowledge generally known by persons skilled in the relevant art at the relevant time. Accordingly, it can include knowledge passed amongst people in the field, including information that is not in published form. Likewise, not everything that has been published is within the common general knowledge.
[36] I put this summary to Counsel for the parties and they generally agreed with it, but each had a point to make. Merck’s Counsel agreed that the POSITA must be, or the group must include, those who were actually in the field. Counsel relied on a statement by Warren J. in Actavis UK Limited v. Merck & Co. Inc. [2007] EWHC 1311, a case that I will discuss in detail later, at paragraph 46. This proposition has been expressly rejected by this Court in Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 57 C.P.R. (4th) 6, 2006 FC 1234, at paragraph 90 (aff’d 2007 FCA 217), 59 C.P.R. (4TH) 116) where it was held that a witness giving evidence on the issue need not have been a person actually involved in the field at the time, so long as they are in a position to provide appropriate evidence as to what a skilled person at the time would have known.
[37] Counsel for Pharmascience raised what he described as a quaere as to whether, given the definition of obviousness in section 28.3 of the “new” Patent Act, which requires a person skilled in the art to have considered “information available to the public” as of the claim date, whether that definition is broader than “knowledge generally known by persons skilled in the relevant art at the relevant time” as stated in the AIPPI summary. I agree that “information available” may be broader than information “generally known”, and to that extent, the AIPPI statement of Canadian law could be modified to remove the word “generally”.
[38] In dealing with individual cases, the Court must guard against making too fine a distinction as to identifying the “ideal” POSITA. Counsel for each party will argue meanings and shades of meanings most favourable to their case and the witness(es) they present. Each Counsel will argue that their witness(es) best fit the description of the ideal POSITA while there are numerous shortcomings with each of the witness(es) for the opposing party.
[39] The Court must generally define the person or group to whom the patent is addressed. It may be that the patent can be read by different persons, each having a different interest. Consideration may have to be given to each such different person. Merck’s Counsel went so far as to suggest that the Court must consider who has the “loudest voice” when considering a team of persons or group of different persons. In this case, it obviously suits Merck to put forward Doctor Russell as the “loudest voice”.
[40] To require fine precision and ranking of voices is to place a series of “trip wires” upon which a Court may be expected to stumble or risk sanctions by a higher Court. There must be some generalized treatment of the question of defining a POSITA and a level of generalization applied.
[41] In the present case, the Court can look at the opening words of the ’457 Patent and obtain reasonable guidance as to the person(s) to whom the patent is directed:
“The present invention is concerned with the treatment of androgenic alopecia, including male pattern baldness, with compounds that are 5α-reductase isozyme 2 inhibitors.”
[42] Thus a POSITA in considering the ’457 Patent is directed to persons concerned with the treatment of male pattern baldness and, in particular, a person or group who were interested in using compounds such as 5α-reductase inhibitors for that person. It could be a researcher or clinician, or both. That person is to be reasonably well read as to the state of the art. That person is to be unimaginative, but that does not mean that the person is slow-witted or graduated (if at all) at the bottom of the class. Nor is the person the gold medallist who graduated at the top of the class. That person is the average person in the group. Just as a “reasonable man” is expected to be reasonable, the POSITA is expected to possess the ordinary skill in the art.
4) Claim Construction
a) History of a Claims Requirement in Canada
[43] The Canadian Patent Act, R.S.C.1985, c. P-4, in the “new” version applicable to applications for a patent filed after October 1, 1989