But-For Result in Prohibition Proceeding Does Not Give Rise to Section 8 Claim for Damages
The Ontario Superior Court recently dismissed a claim for damages brought by Apotex under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of... Read More
Federal Court Confirms Defendants’ Right to Challenge Non-Asserted Claims in PM(NOC) Actions
The Federal Court has recently affirmed by way of summary judgment motion that a Defendant to an action commenced under the Patented... Read More
Relief from the implied undertaking required before varying a confidentiality order
The Federal Court found it was inappropriate to vary the Protective and Confidentiality Order in the original action brought by Janssen against... Read More
Slips of the pen do not restore Janssen’s Zytiga Monopoly
In Janssen Inc v Apotex et al., 2022 FCA 184, the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the invalidity of Canadian Patent No.... Read More
Onus is on (you) to Further Restrict a Protective Order
In Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v Apotex Inc., 2022 FC 1262, Case Management Judge Trent Horne held that where parties cannot agree on... Read More
Sandoz’s Choice: Extend the Statutory Stay and Adjourn Trial or Forego New Invalidity Defences
The Federal Court granted Sandoz Canada Inc. leave to amend its Statement of Defence in an action under the Patented Medicines (Notice... Read More
To Market, To Market, or the Regulations Will Not Apply
The Federal Court dismissed two applications for judicial review by AbbVie Corporation, who challenged the Minister of Health’s decisions (1) finding JAMP... Read More
Suffice it to Say, Pending Claims Are Irrelevant for Sufficiency
The Federal Court of Appeal clarified in Pharmascience v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2022 FCA 142, that the specification of the issued patent, not... Read More
Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Fampridine Trial Decision
Biogen appealed a decision of the Federal Court dismissing its patent infringement actions on the basis that all of the asserted claims... Read More
Janssen’s stranglehold strengthens: Evidence important in indirect infringement
Janssen scored another victory in relation to Canadian Patent No. 2,659,770 in Janssen v Apotex. Janssen sought to prevent Apotex from selling... Read More
For the Defendants’ Eyes Only: Court Permits Filing of Confidential Statement of Claim
In Bayer vs. BGP, Justice Pentney of the Federal Court permitted the filing of a confidential Statement of Claim. Bayer markets aflibercept... Read More
Janssen tightens its grip on treatment for vasoconstrictive diseases
In Janssen v Sandoz, the Federal Court held that Canadian Patent No. 2,659,770 was valid and would be infringed by Sandoz’s proposed... Read More
Federal Court Finds a Salt Patent to be an Inventive Selection
Justice Furlanetto, in an action under the NOC Regulations, has held that Canadian Patent No. 2,529,400 (the “400 Patent”) which claimed the... Read More
Allergen’s “Food Effect” patent is valid but infringement by Apotex was not on the menu
Background Justice Kane of the Federal Court found Canadian Patent 2,602,188, listed on the Patent register for ACTONEL DR (used for... Read More
An Expiring Patent Will Get Its Day in Court under Section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations
Should an action under section 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations be rendered moot if the asserted patent will... Read More
Birds of a Feather Will Not Flock Together: Section 6.02 of PM(NOC) Regulations Prohibits Trials of Common Issues Absent Consent
The Federal Court of Appeal set aside a Federal Court order requiring a trial of common issues from two separate actions initiated... Read More
Walking Speed Claims Held Obvious In First Pharmaceutical Patent “Common Issues” Validity Trial
On May 15, 2020, the Federal Court issued its first decision in a “common issues trial” under the new Patented Medicines (Notice... Read More
Reality Check for s. 8 Damages: But-For World Should Reflect Real World
The Federal Court of Appeal recently pronounced from the bench that damages claimed under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations for lost... Read More
Patentee may file its own reply in PM(NOC) action
In August 2019, Allergan commenced an action under section 6(1) of the PM(NOC) Regulations against Apotex and HRA Pharma in which it... Read More
Pass the Scalpel: “Surgical” Reply Report Responding to New Evidence Held Admissible
On the eve of trial, the Federal Court accepted filing of a reply report responding to new evidence but did not allow... Read More
Product Monographs Given Flexible Reading Informed by Patent Analysis
In Janssen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2019 FC 1355, the Federal Court granted Janssen’s application for an order prohibiting the Minister of... Read More
Court Says No to Reply Evidence, Yes Please to Prior Art
In another nod to the Supreme Court’s “litigation culture change” in Hryniak, the Federal Court rejected expert reports tendered in a motion... Read More
Court of Appeal dismisses Pfizer’s motion to strike PM(NOC) action as abusive
The Court of Appeal recently determined that the institution of proceedings under the “new” PM(NOC) Regulations, is not re-litigation or an abuse... Read More
Happenstance Prior Art Disclosure Of Claim Element Insufficient To Support Obviousness
This judgment was made following the hearing of an application under the PM(NOC) Regulations involving Valeant’s Glumetza™, a proprietary formulation of metformin... Read More
It’s all About Construction
Valeant’s Canadian Patent No. 2,524,300 claims a modified-release bupropion tablet with three parts: a core comprising the active ingredient and various excipients;... Read More