Information in the redacted acknowledgment is not confidential
In a motion related to Apotex’s generic cladribine submission, EMD Serono seeks a declaration that a redacted version of the Acknowledgement and...Read More
Federal Court of Appeal upholds Federal Court’s summary trial finding of patent invalidity
Background The Federal Court of Appeal has rarely upheld or granted a finding of invalidity in the context of a summary trial;...Read More
Time warp on the patent register: Amendments to EMD Serono’s MAVENCLAD judicial review
This is one of two motions relating to judicial reviews that considered when a first person’s patent is eligible for listing on...Read More
A one-two pulse for Takeda’s dexlansoprazole patent found not infringed and invalid
The Federal Court found Takeda’s Canadian Patent No. 2,570,916 to be invalid for lack of utility and sufficient disclosure and to be...Read More
Takeda’s dexlansoprazole patent found invalid for lack of sound prediction of utility and for insufficiency
Background The drug DEXILANT is used to treat heartburn associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and to heal damage to the esophagus from...Read More
Abuse of process remains alive under the Regulations
The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Janssen v. Apotex (here) harkens back to its 2007 decision Sanofi-Aventis v Novopharm (here) and...Read More
A year in review of Health Canada’s Access to Information matters
On November 7, 2023, Health Canada released its annual report on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, reporting on the...Read More
Apotex receives divided success on its motion to amend on the eve of trial
With only a few days remaining before trial, Apotex brought a motion to amend its Further Amended Statement of Defence to include...Read More
Product Monograph Carve-Outs May Not Avoid Infringement
Justice Locke, writing a unanimous decision for the Federal Court of Appeal in Apotex v Janssen, 2023 FCA 220, dismissed Apotex’s appeal...Read More
FCA Confirms Obviousness of Lilly’s Tadalafil Patent
In Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2020 FC 816, Justice St-Louis held that the asserted claims of Lilly’s Patent...Read More
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
Enough (evidence) is enough: Redactions to invoices no barrier to lump sum costs award
In Eli Lilly v Apotex, Justice St-Louis awarded Apotex its costs in a patent action involving the drug tadalafil and three patents...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
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
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
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
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
Erectile Dysfunction Patent Comes Up Short: Tadalafil Patent Claims Found To Be Old and Obvious
On September 10, 2020, the Federal Court released its public Judgement and Reasons holding that all asserted asserted claims of Canadian Patent...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
Court of Appeal Dismisses Apotex’ Perindopril Non-Infringing Alternative Appeal
In Apotex Inc v ADIR, 2020 FCA 60, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’ appeal on its non-infringing alternative (NIA) defence...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
Inventive Concept Redux: Shire’s ADHD Prodrug Patent Upheld By Federal Court
In a decision released publicly on June 21, 2018, the Federal Court dismissed Apotex’s action against Shire seeking a declaration of invalidity...Read More