The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court, which found the asserted patent claims invalid due to obviousness. The court did not address infringement as Taro's non-infringement claim relied on invalidity. Significant issues included the court's failure to consider the perspective of a skilled person and the admissibility of respondent's expert evidence. The appeal and cross-appeal were recommended for dismissal. The case involved the 277 Patent concerning sustained-release aminopyridine compositions for multiple sclerosis treatment. Witnesses, including experts on MS, infringement, and patent matters, testified. The court interpreted claim terms, rejected validity attacks, and considered the viewpoint of a skilled person.

No uploaded documents