Janssen Inc. v Apotex Inc.

We successfully represented Janssen on another appeal relating to infringement of Janssen’s patent covering INVEGA SUSTENNA® (paliperidone palmitate) once-monthly injection product for the treatment of schizophrenia.

On summary trial, the judge found that Apotex would induce infringement of Janssen’s patent, despite not selling one of the three doses in the claimed dosing regimen. On appeal, Apotex argued that because physician prescribing practices would remain unchanged following the introduction of its generic paliperidone palmitate product into the marketplace, the Federal Court had erred in finding that Apotex would be inducing infringement through its product monograph, which included the claimed dosing regimen. 

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal, finding that it was unnecessary for physician prescribing practices to be altered. The Court of Appeal also rejected Apotex’s supplementary argument that the Federal Court had lacked any meaningful analysis in its consideration of the second prong of the test for inducing infringement.