You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: July 11, 2025

Profile for Canada Patent: 2899725


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


US Patent Family Members and Approved Drugs for Canada Patent: 2899725

The international patent data are derived from patent families, based on US drug-patent linkages. Full freedom-to-operate should be independently confirmed.
US Patent Number US Expiration Date US Applicant US Tradename Generic Name
10,166,205 Jan 31, 2033 Legacy Pharma NAFTIN naftifine hydrochloride
10,166,206 Jan 31, 2033 Legacy Pharma NAFTIN naftifine hydrochloride
10,695,303 Jan 31, 2033 Legacy Pharma NAFTIN naftifine hydrochloride
10,729,667 Jan 31, 2033 Legacy Pharma NAFTIN naftifine hydrochloride
>US Patent Number >US Expiration Date >US Applicant >US Tradename >Generic Name

Analysis of Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape for Canadian Drug Patent CA2899725

Last updated: April 18, 2025

The Canadian pharmaceutical patent landscape is shaped by a complex interplay of legal standards, regulatory frameworks, and evolving judicial interpretations. Patent CA2899725, while not directly referenced in available data, serves as a hypothetical case study to explore critical aspects of Canada’s patent system, including claim construction, validity requirements, and market implications. This analysis synthesizes insights from recent legal decisions, patent office guidelines, and statistical trends to provide a comprehensive overview of how such patents are evaluated, enforced, and integrated into the broader innovation ecosystem.


Canadian Drug Patent Framework and Legal Requirements

Statutory Foundations of Patent Validity

Under Canada’s Patent Act, a patent must meet four criteria: novelty, non-obviousness, utility, and sufficient disclosure[13][16]. Novelty requires that the invention was not publicly disclosed before the filing date, with exceptions for disclosures made by the applicant within a one-year grace period[13]. Non-obviousness mandates that the invention would not have been evident to a person skilled in the relevant field, considering prior art[13]. Utility necessitates a demonstrated or predicted use, while sufficiency of disclosure ensures the patent enables replication without undue experimentation[13][10].

For drug patents like CA2899725, these criteria are rigorously applied. For example, a compound’s therapeutic efficacy must be substantiated, and claims covering broad functional or structural classes (e.g., genus claims) must avoid overreach. Recent Federal Court decisions emphasize that broad claims risk invalidation if they fail to provide adequate guidance for implementation across their entire scope[10][11].


Scope and Claims of CA2899725: Construction and Challenges

Claim Types and Functional Limitations

Canadian patents often employ genus claims to cover entire classes of compounds or methods. However, courts have scrutinized such claims for insufficient enablement. In Amgen v. Sanofi, the Federal Court invalidated broad antibody claims due to a lack of representative examples, establishing that functional definitions (e.g., “binds to target X”) require explicit structural correlations[10][11]. For CA2899725, if its claims encompass a genus of molecules, the specification must detail enough representative species to guide skilled practitioners, avoiding allegations of overbreadth[10][14].

Dosage Regimens and Methods of Treatment

Canadian practice permits “use” claims involving dosage regimens, provided they do not encroach on medical professionals’ judgment. In Commissioner’s Decision #1561, the Patent Appeal Board upheld claims specifying body-surface-area dosing, deeming them distinct from prohibited treatment methods[14]. If CA2899725 includes such claims, its validity would hinge on whether the regimen is fixed or allows clinician adjustment.


Patent Landscape in Canada: Trends and Sector Dynamics

Filing and Grant Trends

Domestic patent filings rose by 5% in 2023, with foreign applicants accounting for 80% of submissions[6]. The technology and pharmaceutical sectors dominate, representing 40% and 20% of filings, respectively[6]. AI and renewable energy patents grew by 25% and 15%, reflecting Canada’s innovation priorities[6]. For CA2899725, its classification within these trends—whether as a small-molecule drug, biologic, or therapeutic method—would influence its competitive context.

Regulatory and Litigation Trends

The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations govern drug patent listings on the Patent Register, which determines generic entry timelines[3][4]. In EMD Serono v. Canada, the Federal Court upheld Health Canada’s practice of listing patents only after eligibility review, denying retroactive effect to pending submissions[4]. This precedent underscores the importance of timely patent prosecution for CA2899725, as delays could leave gaps for generic competition.


Legal and Regulatory Challenges Impacting Drug Patents

Enablement and Written Description Hurdles

Recent rulings highlight the precarious balance between claim breadth and disclosure. In Juno Therapeutics v. Kite Pharma, claims to chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) with single-chain variable fragments (scFvs) were challenged for lacking structural specificity[9]. Similarly, CA2899725’s claims must delineate critical elements (e.g., active ingredients, binding domains) to withstand enablement challenges under Section 112 of Canada’s Patent Act[10][13].

Pricing and PMPRB Oversight

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) enforces price ceilings using international reference pricing[7]. Proposed guidelines under consultation in 2024 would intensify scrutiny via a four-stage review process, including initial price comparisons and in-depth analyses of therapeutic value[7]. For CA2899725, compliance with PMPRB’s evolving framework could necessitate strategic pricing and clinical evidence to justify premiums.


Case Studies and Precedents Shaping Patent Scope

CRISPR-Cas9 Patent Disputes

Canada’s first CRISPR-Cas9 patents, granted to the Broad Institute and UC Berkeley, illustrate the challenges of protecting foundational technologies[8]. Licensing agreements with entities like ERS Genomics dictate access terms, affecting research and commercialization[8]. If CA2899725 involves similar platform technologies, its enforcement would depend on cross-licensing strategies and litigation preparedness.

Maintenance and Reinstatement Protocols

The Matco Tools decision (2025) established a two-stage “due care” test for reinstating lapsed patents, considering efforts pre- and post-fee deadlines[15]. This ruling alleviates strict liability, but CA2899725’s maintainers must still implement robust docketing systems to avoid abandonment risks.


Conclusion and Future Outlook

Canada’s patent ecosystem demands precision in claim drafting, agility in regulatory compliance, and vigilance in portfolio management. For CA2899725, navigating this landscape would entail:

  1. Ensuring claims are narrowly tailored with exemplars to satisfy enablement.
  2. Aligning listing timelines with generic submission dates to maximize exclusivity.
  3. Anticipating PMPRB price reviews with robust clinical and economic data.

Judicial trends toward stricter enablement and non-obviousness standards suggest that broad, functionally-defined claims will face heightened scrutiny[10][11]. Meanwhile, legislative updates, such as the 2019 Patent Act amendments, streamline procedures but impose rigorous maintenance obligations[16]. Stakeholders must balance innovation with pragmatism to thrive in this dynamic environment.


Key Takeaways

  1. Claim Specificity: Avoid overbroad functional claims; prioritize structural correlations and representative examples.
  2. Regulatory Timing: Coordinate patent prosecution with drug approval milestones to optimize listing on the Patent Register.
  3. Pricing Strategy: Align drug pricing with PMPRB’s international benchmarks and therapeutic class comparisons.
  4. Maintenance Vigilance: Implement systems to track fee deadlines and leverage Matco Tools’ due care framework for reinstatement.
  5. Litigation Preparedness: Monitor evolving enablement and obviousness standards to preempt validity challenges.

FAQs

  1. How does Canada’s grace period differ from other jurisdictions?
    Canada offers a one-year grace period for inventor disclosures, shorter than the U.S. but aligned with Japan[13][16].

  2. Can dosage regimens be patented in Canada?
    Yes, if claims specify fixed parameters without requiring clinician judgment[14].

  3. What impact do PMPRB guidelines have on drug launches?
    They may delay market entry pending price reviews, affecting revenue projections[7].

  4. How are CRISPR patents licensed in Canada?
    Through entities like ERS Genomics, often requiring royalties for research and commercial use[8].

  5. What remedies exist for missed maintenance fees?
    Reinstatement is possible under a two-stage due care analysis per Matco Tools[15].

“The addition of a patent to the register is not automatic; it must await a determination of eligibility.” — EMD Serono v. Canada (2024)[4]

References

  1. https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search
  2. https://patents.google.com
  3. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/patent-register.html
  4. https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/generic-not-required-to-address-patent-submitted-before-ands-filing-but-listed-after
  5. https://curity.io/resources/learn/scopes-vs-claims/
  6. https://patentpc.com/blog/canadas-patent-landscape-key-statistics-and-trends/
  7. https://www.pharmainbrief.com/2024/06/drug-pricing-pmprb-launches-next-phase-of-the-guidelines-consultation/
  8. https://www.seedworld.com/canada/2023/12/07/who-owns-crispr-cas9-the-jury-is-out-and-its-making-it-hard-to-do-business/
  9. https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1758.opinion.8-26-2021_1825257.pdf
  10. https://www.dechert.com/content/dam/dechert%20files/people/bios/h/katherine-a--helm/TheCAFCAmgenVSanofiDecisionSpellsTroubleForBroadFunctionalPatentClaims.pdf
  11. https://www.thepatentplaybook.com/2023/05/the-supreme-court-kept-the-door-open-to-genus-claims/
  12. https://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/argument-preview-federal-circuit-faces-uphill-battle-in-latest-generics-case/
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_and_non-obviousness_in_Canadian_patent_law
  14. https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2021/canadian-patent-board-broadening-scope-claims
  15. https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/relief-under-canada-s-stringent-due-care-standard-for-missed-maintenance-fees
  16. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-4/
  17. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-property-office/en/patents

More… ↓

⤷  Try for Free

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.