We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 35

Supreme Court to consider section 8 damage quantification

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 31 2014

The Supreme Court of Canada announced yesterday that it has granted leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in a proceeding

Canada agrees to improvements in patent protection under trade agreement with the EU

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Canada, European Union
  • -
  • October 18 2013

After four years of negotiations, Canada and the European Union today signed a significant trade deal which includes elements directed towards

USTR slams Canada over the treatment of pharmaceutical patents

  • Norton Rose Fulbright 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 confirms that an enantiomer of a previously approved medicinal ingredient is not an “innovative drug”

  • Norton Rose Fulbright 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

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

  • Norton Rose Fulbright 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 Fulbright 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 Fulbright 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 Fulbright 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 Fulbright 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 Fulbright 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