Product specificity requires “perfect matching”
In Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) , Justice Bédard of the Federal Court ruled that the Minister of Health’s... Read More
Court of Appeal further clarifies section 8 damages framework
When a generic drug company is held off the market by an improper prohibition application, that generic is entitled to damages under... Read More
Failure to provide samples sinks YAZ non-infringement allegation
On October 22, 2013 Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment and Judgment in a prohibition... Read More
ACLASTA dosing regimen claims directed to unpatentable subject matter
On September 25, 1993 Mr. Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment in prohibition application between... Read More
Punitive damages for infringing (but never sold) helicopter landing gear upheld on appeal
On September 24, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal released its Reasons for Judgment in Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée v. Eurocopter... Read More
Its Alive! Court of Appeal resurrects clopidogrel enantiomer patent
On July 24, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal released its Reasons for Judgment in an appeal involving Canadian Patent No. 1,... Read More
Non-infringing alternative defence rejected in lovastatin infringement damages trial
On July 16, 2013, Justice Snider released her public Reasons for Judgment in the damages phase of the bifurcated lovastatin infringement action. Justice... Read More
“Probably, likely, or definitely” selection patent anticipated, obvious and not infringed
On July 12, 2012, Justice Kane of the Federal Court released the public Reasons for Judgment in Hoffman-La Roche’s prohibition application against... Read More
Supreme Court denies to hear DEXILANT innovative drug appeal
On June 12, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) dismissed, with costs, Takeda’s application for leave to appeal the judgment of the... Read More
Oil well spill tray patents not infringed, one invalid – Federal Court
On June 7, 2013, Justice Barnes issued his Reasons for Judgment in a patent infringement action between Zero Spill Systems and Rat Plastic... Read More
Lilly entitled to costs for moot ALIMTA prohibition application
On June 7, 2013, Justice Barnes of the Federal Court of Canada issued his Supplementary Reasons for Judgment dealing with the costs... Read More
VIAGRA patent not invalidated in prohibition application appeal
On June 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada granted in part Pfizer’s application for a modification of its reasons of the... Read More
Process steps an essential limitation in YASMIN product-by-process claims
On May 29, 2013, Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court of Canada, released his Reasons for Judgment in a prohibition application between Bayer... Read More
Possibility of infringement not enough to sink ZITHROMAX section 8 claim
On May 10, 2013, Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court of Canada issued Reasons for Judgment in Apotex’ section 8 claim against... Read More
Lilly’s ZYPREXA leave application dismissed
On May 16, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Eli Lilly’s leave application seeking leave to appeal the Judgment of the... Read More
Apotex’s application for leave to appeal COMBIGAN prohibition order dismissed
On May 9, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) dismissed Apotex’s application for leave to appeal of a prohibition Order order issued... Read More
Date for assessing sufficiency of the specification is the publication date
On March 19, 2013, Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment in a prohibition application between... Read More
Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My! SEROQUEL XR formulation patent obvious
On March 7, 2013, Justice Near of the Federal Court of Canada, dismissed AstraZeneca’s prohibition applications against Teva in respect quetiapine fumarate... Read More
Technical complexity a lion in the path of NEXIUM obviousness challenge
Om March 5, 2013, Justice O’Keefe of the Federal Court of Canada released Reasons for Judgment in a prohibition application involving Ranbaxy... Read More
Court has broad discretion to order production of pharmaceutical samples – Rule 249
On February 19, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal, in series of three decisions clarified that the Rule 249 provides the Court... Read More
Innovative drugs – “previously approved” does not mean “currently approved”
On February 15, 2013 the Federal Court of Appeal, in a 2:1 decision, released its Reasons or Judgment holding that Celgene’s thalidomide... Read More
LYRICA use claim too broad and lacking utility
On February 4, 2013 Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment dismissing a prohibition application involving... Read More
Enantiomers are not innovative drugs – Federal Court of Appeal
On January 18, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a 2:1 decision, released its Reasons for Judgment holding that Takeda’s dexlansoprazole... Read More
Withdrawal of ALIMTA NOA renders prohibition application moot
On January 14, 2013, Justice Barnes of the Federal Court of Canada issued his Reasons for Judgment in respect of a prohibition... Read More
Opportunity for inspection enough for anticipatory prior use – Federal Court of Appeal
On December 20, 2012 the Federal Court of Appeal, clarified what constitutes anticipatory prior use under the “new” Parent Act in Wenzel... Read More