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 137

Court denies motion for Mareva injunction in a Section 8 damages action

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • March 11 2010

On March 2, 2010, the Federal Court denied a motion brought by Novopharm Limited (“Novopharm”) seeking a Mareva injunction enjoining Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (“Lilly Canada”) from transferring its revenues to its parent company, Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly US”

What’s in a name - or logo, design, shape or packaging?

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • July 29 2009

Executives often underestimate the value of their marketing tools when assessing their company’s worth

Canadian Chamber of Commerce recommends measures to improve Canadian IP protection in the pharmaceutical field

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 20 2011

On January 19, 2011, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council ("CIPC") and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce released a report addressing the need for greater protection of intellectual property in the pharmaceutical field

Importation of product made by a patented process is an act of infringement

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 15 2009

On October 1, 2009, after twelve years of litigation and a six-month trial, Justice Gauthier of the Federal Court held that Apotex Inc. ("Apotex") had infringed eight Canadian patents pertaining to the drug CECLOR (cefaclor) by using Lilly's patented processes abroad and then importing the resulting compounds into Canada

Federal Court rejects all allegations of invalidity and grants prohibition order to Pfizer

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 18 2009

On December 18, 2009, the Federal Court granted an application by Pfizer Canada Inc. and Pharmacia Aktieblolag (“Pfizer et al”) for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a notice of compliance to Pharmascience Inc. (“PMS”) in respect of a generic version of XALATAN until the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 1,339,132 (“132 patent”

IP management plan - who needs one?

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • August 14 2012

The old industrial era has been supplanted by a new knowledge based economy in which ideas and innovation have become the wellspring of economic growth and competitive business advantage

European Union - Canada debate IP rights for pharmaceuticals

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada, European Union
  • -
  • July 12 2011

This briefing written at the invitation of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) provides a further contribution to the current debate around IP rights for pharmaceuticals in Canada

ECJ: use of farm saved seed without fulfilling the obligation to provide information infringes the plant variety right

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • November 29 2013

European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that using the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material as farm saved seed

Do universities have secure rights in inventions made by their academic staff?

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Canada
  • -
  • September 21 2009

A recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (University of Western Australia v. Gray (Gray) puts into question the rights that universities may hold in inventions made by their academic staff

Federal Court sets aside PMPRB decision that required patentees to report payments made to third parties

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • July 13 2009

On July 10, 2009, Mactavish J. of the Federal Court of Canada (the “Court”) allowed the judicial review applications of Pfizer Canada Inc. and Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies et al. (“Rx&D”) and set aside the August 18, 2008 Communiqué of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (the “PMPRB”