The Court dismissed the application for prohibition. The Court held that the allegations as to anticipation was not justified. The Court also found that double patenting law did not apply to the situation and furthermore, since the allegation as to anticipation was not justified, the Gillette defence must also fail.

However, the allegation as to invalidity due to obviousness was found to be justified. In this regard, the Court held that the evidence was evenly balanced, thus, the applicant did not satisfy its burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that the allegation was not justified.

The full text of the decision can be found at:

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc46/2010fc46.html