• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

Federal Court of Appeal Denies Stay Motion in CSP Case on “Medicinal Ingredient” Meaning

04 September 2020
Print
Share

The Backstory

In early April, the Federal Court of Canada decided that the Minister of Health was required to reconsider whether GlaxoSmithKline’s SHINGRIX vaccine was entitled to additional protection pursuant to a Certificate of Supplemental Protection (CSP).

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. (GSK) owns a patent for its SHINGRIX vaccine, which is useful in the prevention or amelioration of shingles in adults older than 50, or in immunocompromised persons.

The Minister of Health refused GSK’s CSP application, primarily on the basis that in her view, to be eligible for a CSP, “a patent must include at least one claim limited to one or more medical ingredients or to their use” and that GSK’s patent didn’t meet this requirement because each of the claims in the patent included a non-medical ingredient (i.e., an adjuvant).

The Federal Court held that the Minister’s decision to refuse a CSP was unreasonable, finding that “medicinal ingredient” includes any ingredient that has “biological activity” in view of the CSP regime and CETA, and ordered the case back to the Minister for redetermination. The Minister then filed both a Notice of Appeal of the Federal Court’s decision and a Motion for Stay of the Federal Court’s order to reconsider the CSP application pending the appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal Denies the Requested Stay

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Minister’s stay motion, finding the Minister would suffer no irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, and instead ordered that the appeal continue in an expedited manner in accordance with the Minister’s request.

In considering whether a stay should be granted, the Federal Court of Appeal performed the tri-partite test from the Supreme Court of Canada, namely whether: (1) there is a serious issue to be tried, (2) the requestor will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and (3) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. All three conditions must be met in order for a stay to be granted, and the requestor bears the burden of proof throughout.

The Federal Court of Appeal focused its analysis on whether the Minister would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, as GSK conceded that there was a serious issue to be tried.

Despite the Minister’s submissions, which included that (i) the appeal would be rendered moot by CSP issuance, (ii) Canadians would be denied the opportunity to pay lower prices for competitors’ biosimilars during the CSP term, (iii) revoking a CSP issued in error is difficult and uncertain, and (iv) contradictory decisions between the Court’s decision on the appeal and the Minister’s CSP decision in this case would compromise the public interest in certainty and predictability of the CSP regime, the Federal Court of Appeal found there was no irreparable harm. It held that the Federal Court’s judgment was not time-limited and did not require a CSP be issued, and that at best the Minister’s evidence was hearsay and the allegations of irreparable harm “argumentative and speculative”.

The Court also noted that it was not persuaded the public interest would be impacted, and that the Minister had conceded that even if the stay was granted she would still be required to consider new CSP applications based on the Federal Court decision. The crux of the Minister’s appeal was a disagreement with the Federal Court’s interpretation of “medicinal ingredient”, which did not relieve her from her burden of proving irreparable harm, as there was no challenge to the validity of the law, but only a dispute regarding its interpretation. The Court further noted that the Minister “may not ignore the judgment pending appeal and must follow her normal procedures and timeframes to make a fresh decision in accordance with the Federal Court judgment.”

As the Court held the irreparable harm element of the test was not met, it did not consider the balance of convenience, instead granting an expedited hearing for the Minister’s appeal, and denying GSK its costs pursuant to the Patent Act.

The Takeaway

How this case is resolved will have a strong impact on how the CSP provisions in Canada are interpreted for years to come. It will now be interesting to see if the Minister makes a fresh decision on GSK’s CSP application before the appeal is heard, though it seems unlikely given the Court’s acknowledgement that she is not required to do so and the appeal has been expedited.

Next Story
  • Preliminary position on priority published
  • Cambridge: City of Innovation - The Oxford-Cambridge Innovation Arc
  • International patent insights on quantum computing
  • InterDigital v Lenovo: The latest FRAND judgment
  • Cambridge: City of Innovation - The 'beer summit' that generated a genomic revolution
More insights

Latest Insights

Article
- 30 March 2023

That’s a wrap! CJEU confirms position on protection for designs dictated by technical function

"Think about the common sense answer and then it's probably something else!" - that's what I always say to anyone I'm training when they ask me a question about a specific piece of IP law.
Read more
Image: Nike Air Max
Article
- 30 March 2023

Nike block MAX 1 for Verstappen

Max Verstappen's plans to launch a MAX 1 clothing range have run into a roadblock, as Nike successfully oppose his Benelux trade mark application on the basis of their rights in AIR MAX. 
Read more
Chemistry
Article
- 24 March 2023

Preliminary position on priority published

As we reported in early 2022, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO are considering two pending referrals (G1/22 and G2/22) regarding the question of entitlement to priority. A hearing has now been set for 26 May 2023, and the Enlarged Board have now issued a preliminary opinion setting out the points to be discussed.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq