Competition Tribunal issues reasons for its dismissal of JAMP’s anti-competition allegations against Janssen
As discussed in a previous post, the Competition Tribunal dismissed JAMP’s application against Janssen alleging abuse of dominance in relation to Stelara,...Read More
Competition Tribunal dismisses JAMP’s abuse of dominance application against Janssen
As discussed in a previous post, JAMP brought an application under the Competition Act seeking leave to bring an application against Janssen...Read More
JAMP files application under Competition Act alleging abuse of dominance against Janssen
JAMP recently brought an application under the Competition Act alleging abuse of dominance against Janssen in relation to Stelara, Janssen’s drug containing...Read More
Letters of request for inventors premature and trial date set
Background Samsung brought this motion for letters of request to be sent to the United States to compel the discovery of inventors...Read More
CUSMA vs Food and Drug Regulations: Federal law predominates
Justice Stratas, writing a unanimous decision for the Federal Court of Appeal in Janssen v Attorney General of Canada, 2024 FCA 66,...Read More
Federal Court finds no error of law in order for production of financial statements
Background In Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., the Federal Court dismissed an appeal of the order of the Case Management Judge compelling...Read More
Validity of maintenance dose patent maintained
The Federal Court of Appeal provided insight into what constitutes an unpatentable method of medical treatment in Janssen v Pharmascience, the latest...Read More
Federal Court finds US supply disruptions relevant to Apotex’s ability to supply the Canadian abiraterone market
In the context of Apotex’s section 8 action against Janssen, Janssen brought a motion under Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules...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
FCA Clarifies Threshold for Soundly Predicting Utility
Justice Locke, writing a unanimous decision for the Federal Court of Appeal in Sandoz v Janssen, 2023 FCA 221, dismissed Sandoz’s appeal...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
Long-Term Safety Data ≠ Longer Patent List for STELARA
The Federal Court upheld a decision of the Office of Submissions and Intellectual Property that Canadian Patent No. 3,113,837 was not eligible...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
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
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 of Appeal: A Leaf Blower is not Enough
In this case, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Justice Locke, who found that two patents pertaining to the...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
Recognizing the High Cost of Litigation: Federal Court Awards 50% of Actual Legal Costs
The Federal Court has traditionally calculated costs awards using the amounts specified in Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules. There has,...Read More
Clean Sweep for Teva in VELCADE Patent Action
In a Judgment dated July 18, 2018, Justice Locke allowed Teva’s claim for section 8 damages in relation to its bortezomib product,...Read More
Federal Court Holds Biologic Patent Valid and Infringed
In the first patent action involving biosimilars, the Federal Court held that the patent was valid and infringed. The Kennedy Trust for...Read More
Federal Court Prohibits Approval Of Generic ADHD Drug
In Janssen Inc. v. Actavis Pharma Company, 2016 FC 1361, Janssen sought an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a...Read More
Without Early Working, Cross-Referenced Drug Submissions Need Not Address Listed Patents: Court of Appeal
On October 12, 2016 the Federal Court of Appeal released a number of judgments dealing with the circumstances in which a cross-referenced...Read More