PS - in a dramatic but predictable development, Justice Zinn in the Federal Court has just followed the SCC's ruling on the invalidity of the patent and went on to hold that:
 I reject the submission of Pfizer that the question of the sufficiency of disclosure in Teva was a mixed question of fact and law. I agree with Apotex that in Teva the sufficiency of the disclosure of the ‘446 Patent turned on three questions of law: (1) the determination of the invention or inventive concept of the patent, (2) the construction of the ‘446 Patent, and (3)HT to Alan Macek - whose excellent blog IPPractice is a must.
whether the ‘446 Patent, properly construed, permitted the person of skill in the art “to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor could at the time of his application.” The determinations made by the Supreme Court on those three questions of law are binding on this Court. Its finding that Pfizer, in failing to disclose which of the many compounds named in the ‘446 Patent was effective in treating erectile dysfunction, had not properly or sufficiently disclosed its invention, is a finding that this Court must respect and follow. As a consequence, when, as here, the action seeks a declaration of the invalidity of the ‘446 Patent for insufficient disclosure, there can be no genuine issue for trial because no result is possible other than a finding that the ‘446 Patent is invalid. Accordingly, Apotex is entitled to summary judgment.