Looking at References: Construing Patent Claims in Hoffmann-Laroche LTD V. Mayne Pharma (Canada) inc.
1
LOOKINGATREFERENCES:CONSTRUINGPATENTCLAIMSIN
HOFFMANN-LAROCHELTD.v.MAYNEPHARMA(CANADA)INC.
JeremyLawsonandZhenWong*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
Inthesummerof2005,theFederalCourtofCanadarenderedadecisionon
theinterpretationofclaimreferencesinHoffmann-LaRocheLtd.v.Mayne
Pharma(Canada)Inc.,2005FC814.Mayneallegedthatthemedicine
cefriaxone,acephemderivative,wasnotcoveredbyLaRoche’spatent.The
Courtconsideredwhetherproductclaimsthatmakereferencetoapartofa
previousprocessclaimshouldbeconsideredoftheproduct-by-processtype
orproducttypeperse.Construingthepertinentclaims,theCourtfoundthat
theclaimsatissuereferonlytothecompoundsdefinedwithintheprocess
claim,andthuscovertheproductperse.
Claimreferencesinthecontextofpatentpractice
Theintellectualpropertyrightconferredonapatenteeisdefinedbythe
claimsinthepatent.Therearetwotypesofclaims:independentand
dependentclaims.Theindependentclaimsestablishtheinventionintermsof
itsessentialelementsandthusfenceoffthemonopolyinitswidestscope.
Dependentclaimsarealsobuilt-in.Dependentclaimsaddfeaturesin
additiontothosedefinedintheclaimsonwhichtheydepend.Infact,
accordingtoSection87(3)ofthePatentRules:
“Anydependentclaimshallbeunderstoodasincludingallthe
limitationscontainedintheclaimtowhichitrefers(…)”
Inthefieldofchemistry,adependentclaimmayforexamplespecifyan
advantageoustemperaturerange,particularcatalyst,orpreferredR-
subgroup.
©CIPS,2005.*OfLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheFall2005issue(Vol.9,No.4)issueofourNewsletter.
Publication068.070E.
2
Tofurthercharacterizeandstrengthenthepropertyright,claimsofnumerous
categories–product,process,use,etc.–areoftenintegratedwithinasame
patentapplication.Asageneralruleofthumb,dependentclaimsreferto
precedingclaimsofthesamecategory.Thus,dependentproductclaims
refertoproductclaims;processclaimstoprocessclaims;useclaimstouse
claims.However,inordertoavoidrepeatinglengthydefinitions,suchas
complicatedmoleculardrawingsandlonglistsofconstituents,claimscan
refertopartsofprecedingclaimsofthesameorofanothercategory.These
claimsdonotcontainallthelimitationsoftheclaimstowhichtheyrefer,and
thusarenot“dependent.”Nevertheless,thereferencesinsuchclaimsshould
beclearandunambiguousinordertoestablishaneffectivemeaning.
TheLaRochecase
TheFederalCourtlookedatclaimreferencesinHoffmann-LaRocheLtd.v.
MaynePharma(Canada)Inc.Inthiscase,theapplicant(LaRoche)hada
licencefortheproductionofthemedicinecefriaxone,whichisthesubjectof
anumberofclaimsintheCanadianpatent1,259,606(hereaftercalledthe
606patent).Thedefendant(Mayne)appliedforaNoticeofCompliance
(NOC)tomarketthemedicineandservedLaRochewithaNoticeof
Allegation(NOA)allegingnon-infringementofthe606patent.LaRoche
soughtanorderprohibitingtheissuanceoftheNOCtoMayneuntiltheexpiry
ofthe606patent,submittingthatthepatentcoversthemedicine.LaRoche
hadtheburdenofprovingthattheNOAwasnotjustifiedinitsclaimofnon-
infringement.
Withregardstothe606patentitself,independentclaims1and2claima
processfortheproductionofgeneralcompoundsthatencompassthe
medicinecefriaxone.Despitebeingprocessclaims,theyprovide,inthefirst
portionoftheclaim,definitionsofacompoundofgeneralformulaI.
Independentclaims45,64and65claimgeneralcompoundsandreferto
processclaims1and2forthedefinitionofthecompounds.Claims45,64
and65aretheclaimsatissueandreadasfollows:
“45.AcephemderivativeofthegeneralformulaIasdefinedin
claim1.”
“64.AcephemderivativeofthegeneralformulaIasdefinedin
claim2.”
“65.Apharmaceuticalcompositioncontainingcompoundsofthe
formulaIasdefinedinclaim1,orapharmaceutically
acceptablesaltthereof,inadmixturewithoneormore
pharmaceuticallyacceptableauxiliaries,carriers,diluentsor
excipients,foruseinthetreatmentofmicrobialinfections.”
3
TheCourtlookedintothefollowingquestion:shouldtheseproductclaims
includetheprocesslimitationsofclaims1or2,andthusbeseenasproduct-
by-processclaims,oraretheclaimsproductclaimsperse?
Ininterpretingtheclaimsatissue,theCourthadtointerpretclaims1and2.
Aspreviouslymentioned,claims1and2relatetoaprocessforthe
preparationofacephemderivative.Theseclaimswereconstruedasclearly
includingtwocomponents:acompoundcomponentandaprocess
component.Thefirstportionoftheclaimsdefinesthecephemderivative
(thecompoundcomponent).Thesecondportionoftheclaimsdefinesthe
processbywhichthecephemderivativesaremade(theprocess
component).Thesetwoportionsareseparatedbythetransitionalexpression
“inwhich.”
Turningbacktoclaim45,theCourtcametotheconclusionthatthewording
ofthisclaimonlyreferredtothe“compoundcomponent”ofclaim1.
Otherwise,tocapturebothconceptsincludedinclaim1,thatisthe
compoundcomponentandtheprocesscomponent,claim45shouldnot
onlyhavemadereferencetotheprocesscomponentbutthefollowing
wordsshouldalsohavebeenincluded:“andmadebytheprocessofclaim
1.”Thesamereasoningappliestoclaims64and65.
Therefore,inordertoconcludethatclaims45,64and65containallofthe
limitations(compoundandprocess)ofclaims1and2,thewordingofclaims
45,64and65mustclearlyindicatereferencetobothportionsofclaim1or2.
TheCourt’smannerofconstruingthereferencesoftheclaimsparticularly
showsthatthedoctrineof“purposiveconstruction”injuridicalproceedings
extendsbeyondtheelementsofaninvention,andeventothetextual
structureandformalreferencesoftheclaims.Claimsmustbecleartofulfill
theirdisclosureandpublicnoticefunctions.Inordertoavoidpotential
litigation,sometimeslengthydefinitionsshouldberepeatedratherthan
referredto.Moreover,notonlydotheelementsofaninventionneedtobe
mindfullydescribedandinterrelated,butthetextualorderandclaim
referencesmustalsobeapproachedwithacuteawarenessoftheireventual
interpretation–inordertowriteclearandunambiguousclaimstoestablisha
stalwartintellectualpropertyright.
4
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD