Federal Court Upholds Gap between Claim Construction and PM(NOC) Product...
Eli Lilly Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 152 The Federal Court upheld the decision of the Minister of Health to exclude Eli Lilly’s Canadian Patent No. 2,379,329 (the “’329 Patent”) on the...
View ArticlePM(NOC) Amendments to Reverse Gilead and Viiv Decisions Regarding Product...
Following a pair of decisions in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, namely Gilead Sciences Canada v Minister of Health, 2012 FCA 254, and ViiV Healthcare ULC v Teva Canada Limited, 2014 FC...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Relitigating Conceded Claims is an Abuse of PM(NOC) Proceedings
Gilead Sciences, Inc v Canada (Health), 2015 FC 610 In Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) (“PM(NOC)”) proceedings between Gilead Sciences Inc. (“Gilead”) and Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), the Federal...
View ArticleData Protection Provisions Block Post-Filing NDS Amendments for Generic Drug
Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Canada (Health), 2015 FC 1205 Normally, when a drug company seeks approval to sell a generic drug in Canada, the applicant cannot rely on a comparison of the generic...
View ArticleStrike Two: Second Prohibition Application Regarding Mylan’s Proposed...
Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2015 FC 125 This Federal Court (“FC”) decision dealt with an application to prohibit the issuance of a Notice of Compliance (“NOC”) until the expiry of...
View ArticleFC Dismisses Prohibition Application – Favours Respondent’s “Blinded Expert”...
Takeda Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2015 FC 570 In this Federal Court (“FC”) decision the FC dismissed a prohibition application on the basis that the applicant failed to establish that...
View ArticleLaw Remains Unsettled Regarding Appropriate Date for Assessing...
Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 875 Pharmaceutical patent-filers face more uncertainty as to the appropriate time to file patent applications, after this Federal Court (“FC”) decision. This...
View ArticleFC Bifurcates Infringement & Validity Issues from Section 8 PM(NOC)...
Apotex Inc v Alcon Canada Inc, 2016 FC 720 It appears that Courts look to reduce duplicative pharmaceutical litigation in PM(NOC) proceedings and related patent infringement actions by looking to...
View Article“More or Less Self-evident” Remains the Standard in the Obvious-to-Try Test
Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2015 FCA 286 An attack on the Federal Court’s (“FC”) slight rewording of the obvious-to-try test has proven unsuccessful. Background: FC Finds...
View ArticlePharmaceutical Patentees Could Face More than 100% of Actual Damages under...
Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Aventis, 2014 FCA 68 Innovator pharmaceutical companies should be cautious and think twice about how aggressively they defend their patents as they could potentially face paying...
View ArticleFCA Clarifies Test for Obviousness-Type Double-Patenting
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2016 FCA 119 Patent owners applying for a new patent should be prepared to identify a degree of inventiveness from their previous patents, even those...
View ArticleFC Rules PM(NOC) Prohibition Application Not An Abuse of Process
Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 1016 The Federal Court (“FC”) has discretion as to whether or not to stay a prohibition application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance)...
View ArticleDoes the Patent Act provide a “complete code” of remedies? ONSC allows the...
Apotex Inc v Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, 2016 ONSC 7193 In this Ontario Superior Court (“ONSC”) decision, Nordheimer J heard pleadings by Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) and Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals...
View ArticleFC Affirms Prothonotary Decision Allowing Action to Continue on Allegations...
Gilead Sciences, Inc v Teva Canada Limited, 2016 FC 336 Patent holders may want to consider bringing actions for potential future patent infringement, , even where the future infringement is temporally...
View ArticleFederal Court Grants Prohibition Order on Generic Psoriasis-treating Ointment
Leo Pharma Inc v Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FC 1237 The Federal Court (“FC”) heard an application by Leo Pharma Inc. (“Leo”) to prohibit Teva Canada Inc. (“Teva”) from being issued a Notice of...
View ArticleFCA Finds Provincial Limitation Periods May Apply to Patents Subject to the...
Apotex Inc v Astrazeneca Canada Inc, 2017 FCA 9 Patents that are subject to the old Patent Act may have provincial limitation periods applicable to them if all elements of the cause of action are...
View ArticleApotex’s Claims for Damages for Delayed Market Entry Allowed to Proceed
Apotex v Eli Lilly, 2017 ONSC 224 In this Ontario Superior Court (“ONSC”) decision, Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), sought compensation from Eli Lilly and Company Limited (“Eli Lilly”) for damages suffered for...
View ArticleAllergan fails to demonstrate to FC that Apotex’s allegations of invalidity...
Allergan Inc v Apotex Inc, 2016 FC 344 Not adequately distinguishing between mere goals and promises of utility in the claims of a patent could spell out disaster for patentees. In this Federal Court...
View ArticleFC Denies Prohibition Order Request; Finds Expert Blinding Persuasive But Not...
Shire Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2016 FC 382 When using expert witnesses in patent litigation, blinding them may be persuasive to a court, however the primary focus should be ensuring the substance and...
View ArticleFC Strikes PM(NOC) Application Due to No Chance of Success
Janssen Inc v Celltrion Healthcare Co, Ltd, 2016 FC 525 Applications brought under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“the PM(NOC) Regulations”) are likely to be dismissed if it...
View Article
