▁be ▁a ▁corresponding ▁det r iment ▁to ▁the ▁pat ent ▁holder ▁and ▁thus ▁an ▁in fr ing ement . ▁Poss ession ▁creates ▁a ▁pres umption ▁of ▁intention ▁to ▁use ; ▁the ▁bur den ▁is ▁on ▁the ▁def endant ▁to ▁re but ▁this ▁pres umption . ▁ ▁Output ▁from ▁a ▁pat ented ▁process ▁or ▁product ▁A ▁pat ent ▁holder ' s ▁rights ▁extend ▁to ▁articles ▁that ▁were ▁manufact ured ▁in ▁a ▁manner ▁that ▁in fr ing ed ▁the ▁pat ent . ▁This ▁protection ▁extends ▁to ▁use ▁of ▁pat ented ▁processes ▁or ▁products ▁including ▁inter medi aries . ▁The ▁court ▁in ▁Pf izer ▁Canada ▁Inc . ▁v . ▁Canada ▁( He alth ), ▁found ▁that ▁a ▁finding ▁of ▁in fr ing ement ▁should ▁be ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁the ▁in vention ▁and ▁the ▁extent ▁to ▁which ▁it ▁was ▁used ▁in ▁production . ▁The ▁court ▁out lined ▁the ▁following ▁factors ▁in ▁determ ining ▁whether ▁there ▁is ▁an ▁in fr ing ement : ▁ ▁The ▁importance ▁of ▁the ▁product ▁or ▁process ▁to ▁the ▁final ▁product ▁sold ▁into ▁Canada . ▁Where ▁the ▁use ▁is ▁incident al , ▁non - ess ential ▁or ▁could ▁readily ▁be ▁subst it uted ..., ▁a ▁Court ▁might ▁be ▁less ▁incl ined ▁to ▁find ▁in fr ing ement . ▁Whether ▁the ▁final ▁product ▁actually ▁contains ▁all ▁or ▁part ▁of ▁the ▁pat ented ▁product . ▁Where ▁the ▁pat ented ▁product ▁can ▁actually ▁be ▁identified ▁in ▁the ▁product ▁sold ▁into ▁Canada , ▁there ▁may ▁be ▁a ▁strong ▁case ▁for ▁a ▁finding ▁of ▁in fr ing