under second predetermined conditions at least one of absent and prior to any
communication between the zones of increased mobility.
 Claims 2 to 8 are dependent on claim 1. As the Federal Court recognized (at paragraph 70
of its reasons), they thus incorporate its elements by reference: Apotex Inc. v. Shire LLC, 2021
FCA 52 (Shire FCA) at para. 52, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 39662 (October 7, 2021).
These claims read as follows:
2. A method according to claim 1 wherein,
the second predetermined schedule begins injection of the second fluid into the
third well before a depletion zone resulting from injection of the first fluid into the
first well of the first well pair merges with another depletion zone resulting from
concurrent operation of the second well pair disposed in mirror relationship with
respect of the third well with the first well pair.
3. The method according to claim 1 wherein at least one of:
the first well in at least one of the first and second well pairs does not inject the
fluid whilst the second well of the at least one the first and second well pairs is
the fluid is at least one of steam, water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, propane and
4. The method according to claim 1 wherein,
injection into the third well is made at a higher pressure than injection into the
first wells of each well pair.
5. The method according to claim 1 wherein,
at least one of:
the second predetermined conditions comprise at least injecting the second
fluid at a pressure that is substantially at least one of lower and higher than
the pressure at that at region of the oil bearing structure within which the
second well of at least one of the first and second well pairs is disposed; and
the second predetermined schedule comprises at least operating the third well
to extract oil from the oil bearing structure, and operating the third well whilst
injecting a second fluid into the first well of at least one of the first and
second well pairs under second predetermined conditions.