Patented Medicine Prices Review Board “crashed through the constitutional, statutory and jurisprudential guardrails”
The Federal Court of Appeal issued strong reasons reprimanding the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board for overstepping its jurisdiction. The Court found...Read More
Preventous saga continued: Audit reports not “supplied” and not “confidential” under s 20(1)(b)
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review by Preventous Collaborative Health, Provital Health and Copeman Healthcare Centre after their half-decade-long saga to...Read More
They have the power: Canadian Energy Services v Commissioner of Patents
In a recent decision, the Federal Court upheld the Commissioner of Patents’ decision to vary the Patent Office records and name Mr....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
PMPRB prevails in obtaining financial disclosure
Justice Fothergill dismissed Galderma’s judicial review application of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board’s redetermination decision concluding Galderma’s Patent pertained to its...Read More
Preventous et al. still unsuccessful in accessing information to support their judicial review
The Federal Court of Appeal continues to decline the efforts of three private health clinics to obtain information from Health Canada to...Read More
Not Trading Places: Federal Court Clarifies the Role of the Attorney General on Judicial Review Applications
The Federal Court recently clarified the role of the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) on applications for judicial review. The AGC has...Read More
Federal Court of Appeal Strikes Down “Test” for Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions
Attorney General of Canada v Benjamin Moore & Co., 2023 FCA 168 concerned the appeal of Federal Court decision 2022 FC 923....Read More
Entirety Of The Patent Must Be Considered When Determining If A Patent Pertains To A Medicine
Galderma had two patents for Differin which contained 0.1% adapalene (Canadian patent nos. 1,266,646 and 1,312,075 (expired 2007 and 2009, respectively). In...Read More
Minor procedural mistake should be fixed, not fought
In Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) v. Alberta, 2015 FC 268, the Court of Appeal provided guidance on how parties should...Read More
Absent Special Circumstances, Interlocutory Trademark Decision Not Subject To Judicial Review
McDowell applied for judicial review of an interlocutory decision of the Trade-Marks Opposition Board that had refused to grant McDowell leave to...Read More
New Evidence Ices Diamond Trade-Mark Registration
On December 2, 2014 Justice Kane of the Federal Court of Canada overturned a decision of the Trade-Marks Opposition Board and held...Read More
“If I Can’t Have it, No One Can” Argument Raised Too Late
On October 14, 2014, Justice Mactavish of the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an application for judicial review of a Trademarks Opposition...Read More
Apotex Challenges Minister’s Refusal To Approve Apo-rasagiline
Apotex is seeking judicial review of a decision to decline to issue a Notice of Compliance (“NOC”) to Apotex for its Apo-rasagiline...Read More
A Light at the End of the Tunnel: Apotex Entitled to Damages for Non-Canadian Reference Product Test Case
On November 18, 2014, Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada found the Crown liable in tort for damages to Apotex...Read More
Forgetting Someone? Court of Appeal orders Hospira to add Sanofi to oxaliplatin judicial review
On September 9, 2014, Justice Gauthier of the Federal Court of Appeal, released the Reasons for Judgment in Hospira Healthcare Corporation v....Read More