Third Time’s a Charm: Tadalafil Use Patent Invalidated in Summary Trial
Canadian Patent No. 2,226,784 is generally directed to a pharmaceutical composition containing tadalafil or its physiologically acceptable salts or solvates for the...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
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
ACCUPRIL impeachment action allowed to continue notwithstanding patent expiry
In 2003, Pfizer commenced a prohibition application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations in respect of Canadian Patent Nos. 1,341,...Read More
Wrongly issued COMBIGAN prohibition order upheld for different reasons
On November 23, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal of Justice Hughes’ Judgment granting a prohibition Order in respect...Read More
Third time’s a charm? Court of Appeal again remits Weatherford’s induced infringement claim
On October 17, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal issues it’s Reason for Judgment in Corlac Inc. et al v. Weatherford Canada...Read More
4(2)(b) or not 4(2)(b) – Federal Court of Appeal answers the question in COMPLERA patent listing decision
On October 9, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal released its Reasons for Judgment holding Canadian Patent No. 2,512,475 was not eligible...Read More
Janssen’s low dosage oral contraception regime patent valid
On September 11, 2012, The District Court for the District of New Jersey issued it opinion in an ANDA matter between Jansen...Read More
“Second best choice” does not teach away – ZEGERID
On September 4, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its per curiam opinion in Santarus v. Par Pharmaceutical....Read More
Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear Ontario private label drug appeal
On August 30, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Minister of Health and...Read More
CAFC divided over divided infringement
On August 31, 2012 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its en banc decisions in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v....Read More
Double patenting analysis must consider claim “as a whole” – CAFC
On August 24th, 2012 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the United States District Court for...Read More
ANDA counterclaim of non-infringement not mooted by dedication of INTUNIV patent to public
On August 20, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Watson and Impax’s motion for summary...Read More
Celltrion announces Korean approval of biosimilar monoclonal antibody
On July 23, 2012, Celltrion announced the approval by the Korean Food and Drug Administration of REMSIMA, its biosimilar anti-TNFα monoclonal antibody....Read More