Editing Sildenafil (section)

====Canada====
In Canada, Pfizer's patent 2,324,324 for Revatio (sildenafil used to treat pulmonary hypertension) was found invalid by the Federal Court in June 2010, on an application by [[Ratiopharm]] Inc.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.canadiantechnologyiplaw.com/2010/06/articles/intellectual-property/patents-1/revatio-patent-ruled-invalid-for-lack-of-sound-prediction-and-obviousness/ |publisher=Stikeman Elliott |work=Canadian Technology & IP Law |title=Revatio patent ruled invalid for lack of sound prediction and obviousness |date=18 June 2010 |access-date=14 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205830/http://www.canadiantechnologyiplaw.com/2010/06/articles/intellectual-property/patents-1/revatio-patent-ruled-invalid-for-lack-of-sound-prediction-and-obviousness/ |archive-date=3 March 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2010/2010fc612/2010fc612.html |title=''Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Ratiopharm Inc.'', 2010 FC 612 |publisher=CanLII |access-date=27 December 2013 |archive-date=15 January 2013 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130115095754/http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2010/2010fc612/2010fc612.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

On 8 November 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Pfizer's patent 2,163,446 on Viagra was invalid from the beginning because the company did not provide full disclosure in its application. The decision, ''[[Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.]]'', pointed to section 27(3)(b) of The Patent Act which requires that disclosure must include sufficient information "to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains" to produce it. It added further: "As a matter of policy and sound statutory interpretation, patentees cannot be allowed to 'game' the system in this way. This, in my view, is the key issue in this appeal."<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.|link=|year=2012|court=scc|num=60|pinpoint=par. 80|parallelcite=|date=8 November 2012|courtname=|juris=}}</ref>

Teva Canada launched Novo-Sildenafil, a generic version of Viagra, on the day the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.thestar.com/business/2012/11/08/supreme_court_ruling_could_lead_to_cheaper_versions_of_viagra.html |work=[[Toronto Star]] |vauthors=Spears J |title=Supreme Court ruling could lead to cheaper versions of Viagra |date=8 November 2012 |access-date=14 November 2012 |archive-date=10 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130310084530/http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/11/08/supreme_court_ruling_could_lead_to_cheaper_versions_of_viagra.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://digitaljournal.com/article/336456 |work=Digital Journal |title=Canadian Supreme court rules Viagra patent invalid |vauthors=Hanly K |date=8 November 2012 |access-date=14 November 2012 |archive-date=11 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121111141433/http://digitaljournal.com/article/336456 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |publisher=[[CBC News]] |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/viagra-patent-tossed-out-by-supreme-court-1.1216466 |title=Viagra patent tossed out by Supreme Court: Decision allows generic versions of drug to be produced |access-date=14 November 2012 |date=8 November 2012 |archive-date=18 September 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130918100438/http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/viagra-patent-tossed-out-by-supreme-court-1.1216466 |url-status=live }}</ref> To remain competitive, Pfizer then reduced the price of Viagra in Canada.<ref>{{cite news |work=Financial Post |url=http://business.financialpost.com/2012/11/22/pfizer-canada-drops-viagra-price-generic-201/ |title=Pfizer Canada drops Viagra price after generic versions get Supreme Court green light |access-date=9 February 2013 |date=22 November 2012 |archive-date=30 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130095322/http://business.financialpost.com/2012/11/22/pfizer-canada-drops-viagra-price-generic-201/ |url-status=live }}</ref> However, on 9 November 2012, Pfizer filed a motion for a re-hearing of the appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=33951 |access-date=14 November 2012 |title=SCC Case Information, Docket No. 33951 |date=January 2001 |archive-date=27 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131227180306/http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=33951 |url-status=live }}</ref> on the grounds that the court accidentally exceeded its jurisdiction by voiding the patent.<ref>{{cite news |vauthors=Makin K |work=The Globe and Mail |date=15 November 2012 |access-date=15 November 2012 |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-rare-move-pfizer-asks-supreme-court-to-reconsider-ruling-that-killed-viagra-patent/article5347670/ |title=In rare move, Pfizer asks Supreme Court to reconsider ruling that killed Viagra patent |archive-date=5 February 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130205050909/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-rare-move-pfizer-asks-supreme-court-to-reconsider-ruling-that-killed-viagra-patent/article5347670/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Finally, on 22 April 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated Pfizer's patent altogether.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Supreme Court of Canada holds Pfizer's Viagra patent invalid |vauthors=Henderson GL, D'Iorio H |work=Lexology |date=22 April 2013 |url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=63099904-cd62-4b40-a2e2-5112612e2da8 |access-date=27 December 2013 |archive-date=27 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131227123421/http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=63099904-cd62-4b40-a2e2-5112612e2da8 |url-status=live }}</ref>