Background:

• Pharmascience appealed the Federal Court’s decision that its generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA would infringe Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2655335 (the '335 Patent), which details a dosing regimen for schizophrenia treatment.

Legal Issues:

• Pharmascience contested the Federal Court's ruling on inducing patent infringement, specifically whether direct infringement would result from the use of its generic product in combination with Janssen’s 75 mg-equivalent dose.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

• The appeal focused on the “inducing patent infringement” doctrine, specifically whether Pharmascience’s actions would indirectly cause infringement of the '335 Patent.
• The court examined if direct infringement would occur when Pharmascience’s product was used with Janssen’s 75 mg-eq. dose, considering the legal framework for implied licenses and patent infringement.
• The Federal Court's determination was upheld, finding that using Pharmascience’s product with Janssen’s dose would lead to direct infringement of the '335 Patent.

Outcome:

• The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Pharmascience would induce infringement of the '335 Patent with its generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA. Costs were awarded to Janssen in the agreed amount of $10,000, all-inclusive.