The Court granted prohibition to Pfizer and found that Pharmascience’s allegations of invalidity were not justified. Pharmascience also raised the Gillette defence and the Court held that the availability of such a defence depends upon the determination of the allegations of invalidity that were raised; meaning that if the allegations of anticipation and obviousness failed, then the Gillette defence must also fail. In this case, all three allegations were held to fail.

The Court also considered the allegation of insufficiency and found that the patent sufficiently disclosed what the invention is and how it works. Thus, the allegation of insufficiency failed. The Court further found that the patent offered the public a useful choice from what was offered as the state of the art. Thus, the allegations of inutility failed. Finally, the Court considered and rejected the lack of sound prediction and overbreadth allegations. This decision has been appealed.

The full text of the decision can be found at:

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc1294/2009fc1294.html