Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 58

USTR slams Canada over the treatment of pharmaceutical patents

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
May 6 2013

On May 1, 2013, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) released its annual IP report for 2013. Canada has been placed on the “Watch List"

Federal Court of Appeal reverses lower court decision and holds that THALOMID is not an “innovative drug”

Norton Rose LLP
-
Canada
-
February 21 2013

This was an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court granting Celgene Inc.’s (“Celgene”) application for judicial review and quashing a decision

Federal Court of Appeal confirms that an enantiomer of a previously approved medicinal ingredient is not an “innovative drug”

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
January 23 2013

This was an appeal from the decision of the Federal Court which had dismissed Takeda’s application for judicial review of the Minister’s refusal to

Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner orders pharmaceutical manufacturers’ aggregate payment data to be released

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
November 7 2012

In a decision dated October 18, 2012, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) in Ontario released Order PO 3120, relating to a request, under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), seeking release of the aggregate total of all payments made by individual drug manufacturers under the Ontario Drug Benefits Program for the year 2009, as amounts relating to product reimbursed by the Ontario government

Federal Court holds that Apotex is entitled to section 8 damages in respect of omeprazole losec

Norton Rose LLP
-
Canada
-
June 8 2012

On May 11, 2012, the Federal Court issued a decision in a case brought by Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) against AstraZeneca Canada Inc. (“AstraZeneca”) pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”

Federal Court releases decisions in ramipril section 8 cases

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
June 6 2012

On May 23, 2012, the Federal Court released its public reasons in three companion decisions, all written by Madam Justice Snider, in respect of litigation brought separately by Teva Canada Limited (“Teva”) and Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) against Sanofi-Aventis and related companies (“Sanofi”) pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”

Federal Court invalidates selection patent for lack of sound prediction PLAVIX (clopidogrel)

Norton Rose LLP
-
Canada
-
January 9 2012

On December 6, 2011, the Federal Court (per Boivin J.) held in a 247-page decision that sanofi-aventis’s patent for clopidogrel bisulfate (PLAVIX) is invalid because the inventors failed to disclose the factual basis and line of reasoning for their sound prediction of utility in the specification

Canada: Federal Court prohibits the approval of generic Anastrozole ARIMIDEX

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
September 12 2011

On August 29, 2011 the Federal Court allowed an application by AstraZeneca Canada Inc. and AstraZeneca UK Limited (collectively “AstraZeneca”) pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC (“Mylan”) in respect of its generic version of the drug anastrozole until after the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 1,337,420 (the “’420 Patent”

Federal court prohibits the approval of a generic prodrug CELLCEPT (mycophenolate mofetil)

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
July 26 2011

On July 13, 2011, the Federal Court allowed an application by Hoffman La-Roche Limited (“Roche”), pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) in respect of its generic version of the drug mycophenolate mofetil (“MMF”) until after the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 1,333,285 (the “285 Patent”

Court of Appeal holds that “lack of good faith” is not a basis to invalidate an issued patent. Recent jurisprudence in pharmaceutical cases is not to be followed.

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
July 20 2011

On July 18, 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) dismissed an appeal by Corlac Inc. et al (“Corlac”) from a Trial Judgment declaring Canadian Patent No. 2,095,937 (“937 Patent”) to be valid and infringed

next >