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

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

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”

Federal Court of Appeal holds that section 8 liability is confined to damages and excludes future losses

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 4 2009

At long last, on June 4, 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal rendered its first substantive judgment on section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the "Regulations"

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

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”

Court orders statutory compensation for employee inventors

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 6 2009

Following the recent English High Court decision where two ex-employees were awarded £1.5 million in compensation under the Patents Act for the 'outstanding benefit' that a patent on one of their inventions conferred on their employer, the question is being asked: will this bring a raft of similar claims from employees and ex-employees who feel they have not been fairly rewarded for the financial benefit that their inventions have brought their employers?