Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 45

The difficulty of proper disclosure for BIO-IT patents

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
September 30 2009

According to the Canadian Patent Act a patent will only be granted if an invention is novel, non-obvious and useful, assuming that the claims define statutory (i.e., patentable) subject matter

Federal Court invalidates selection patent for zyprexa (olanzapine)

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
October 15 2009

On October 1, 2009, Justice O'Reilly of the Federal Court held that Canadian Patent No. 2,041,113 ("113 Patent") was an invalid selection patent on the basis that the advantages of olanzapine in comparison to a previously disclosed genus and other anti-psychotics was not soundly predictable at the Canadian filing date

Federal Court considers a patent disclaimer filed after the receipt of a notice of allegation

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
November 10 2009

On October 22, 2009, Justice Zinn of the Federal Court dismissed sanofi-aventis Canada Inc.'s application for an order of prohibition

Lack of good faith during patent prosecution invalidates patent

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
November 27 2009

On October 28, 2009, the Federal Court dismissed Lundbeck's application for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a notice of compliance to Ratiopharm in respect of a generic version of EBIXA until the expiry of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,014,453 ("' 453 patent") and 2,426,492 ("'492 patent"

Federal Court holds that formulation patents must claim all medicinal ingredients in order to be eligible for listing

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
November 24 2009

On November 17, 2009, Justice Russell of the Federal Court dismissed Bayer Inc.'s application for judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision that Canadian Patent No. 2,194,979 (the "'979 Patent") was ineligible for listing on the Patent Register

Federal Court denies prohibition order patents not infringed - desloratidine (Aerius)

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
January 26 2010

On December 22, 2009, the Federal Court dismissed an application for an Order preventing the Minister of Health from issuing a notice of compliance to Pharmascience Inc. ("PMS") in respect of a generic version of Schering-Plough’s ("Schering") desloratidine drug until the expiry of Canadian Patent Nos. 2,325,014 ("'014 patent") and 2,267,136 ("'136 patent"

Supreme Court of Canada denies leave to Apotex - liability under Section 8 of the NOC Regulations is now clarified

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
January 28 2010

On January 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Apotex’s application for leave to appeal from the first appellate decision concerning the scope of liability under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”), as they stood prior to October 5, 2006

Federal Court of Appeal: section 8 damages do not arise if a prohibition order is set aside after an impeachment action NAPROXYN SR (NAPROXEN

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
June 15 2010

On June 10, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) dismissed Apotex Inc.’s (“Apotex”) appeal from the decision of Hughes J, who had dismissed Apotex’s damages action under section 8 of the NOC Regulations in respect of the drug NAPROXYN SR

Federal Court refuses to preliminarily decide propriety of asserting infringement defence to a section 8 damages claim

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
February 3 2010

On January 27, 2010, Justice Hughes of the Federal Court ruled that it was premature to decide whether an innovative drug company could assert a defence of patent infringement in response to a damages action commenced by a generic drug manufacturer pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the "PM(NOC) Regulations"

Federal court holds that notice of allegation is not a confidential document

Norton Rose Canada LLP
-
Canada
-
May 4 2010

On April 14, 2010, Prothonotary Milczynski of the Federal Court dismissed a motion by Novopharm Limited (“Novopharm”) for an Order designating its notice of allegation (“NOA”) as “confidential information” under the terms of a Protective Order

next >