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
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
Carvedilol case keeps on ticking
In the latest development in the carvedilol skinny label odyssey, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Teva’s petition...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 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
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
Pipefill sales recoverable under section 8 – Federal Court of Appeal
In its judgment dated February 22, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Eli Lilly’s appeal from the judgment of Justice O’Reilly...Read More
Desvenlafaxine Polymorph Patent Not Obvious – Federal Court
The Federal Court simultaneously issued a pair of prohibition orders against Teva and Apotex in relation to the drug desmethyl-venlafaxine succinate, which...Read More
Venlafaxine Section 8 Damage Award Reaffirmed Upon Redetermination
Back in 2014, the Federal Court issued its judgment in Teva’s section 8 damages action in relation to the drug venlafaxine. On...Read More
Aitken Klee successful in Teva Olanzapine Section 8 Damages Case
The Federal Court recently issued its decision in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2017 FC 88, Teva’s action for...Read More
Court of Appeal Clarifies Meaning Of “Inventive Concept”
On April 11, 2017 the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in BMS’ appeal from a Judgment of the Federal Court...Read More
Plavix 1’s “Inventive Concept” Did Not Change the Definition Of Obviousness – Federal Court of Appeal
On April 11, 2017 the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in BMS’ appeal of a Judgment dismissing a prohibition application...Read More
Teva Successful In Pregabalin Section 8 Damages Case Against Pfizer
On March 30, 2017 Justice Phelan issued his Public Reasons for Judgment awarding Teva damages under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations...Read More
Party Has Prima Facie Right To Select Discovery Representative
The Federal Court recently issued a decision dealing with a discovery motion requesting a specific individual as a representative for discovery and...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
Strong Possibility of Future Drug Patent Infringement Survives Motion to Strike
On March 21, 2016, Justice Barnes dismissed an appeal of Prothonotary Tabib’s Order that refused to strike a pleading based in quia...Read More
Keep it Together: Federal Court Upholds Decision Refusing Bortezomib Bifurcation
On March 15, 2016, Justice Diner of the Federal Court released his Order and Reasons in Teva Canada Limited v. Janssen Inc.,...Read More
Federal Court of Appeal refuses Appeal of Motion to Strike Decision due to “Uncertainty” in the Case Law
On December 8, 2015, Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal released his Reasons for Judgment of the Court in Teva...Read More
A Confluence of Two Streams – Subsequent Amalgamation Cannot Change Contracting Parties’ Intention
In April 2009, Pfizer and ratiopharm settled a prohibition application under the PM(NOC) Regulations in respect of the drug product ratio-sildenafil. Subsequent...Read More
Generics are “patentees” subject to PMPRB oversight
The recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney General of Canada v. Sandoz Canada Inc., and Attorney General of...Read More
Do ask, still don’t get – $2000 awarded on Bill of Costs seeking more than $400,000
Teva Canada Limited and Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc have duelled over Teva’s generic ramipril product in various proceedings, including an NOC proceeding, an...Read More
Absent Unusual Circumstances, Column IV Costs Remain the Standard in PM(NOC) Proceedings
Justice O’Reilly’s decision in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited confirms that costs awarded at the upper end of Column...Read More
Prothonotary Can Require Production of Relevant Confidential Documents From a Different Action
In Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Ltd., 2015 FC 801, Justice Annis allowed Teva’s appeal in part finding that the...Read More
Federal Court rejects overarching promise of utility for iron chelation patent
On June 19, 2015 Justice O’Reilly issued reasons in a prohibition application under the PM(NOC) Regulations. Novartis had sough a prohibition Order...Read More