Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 235

Intellectual property weekly abstracts bulletin

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada
-
June 10 2013

In November, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the sildenafil case, and, as part of its order, found the patent to be invalid. As this case was

Claim for section 8 damages allowed

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada
-
May 28 2013

In this case, Apotex claimed damages pursuant to s. 8 of the NOC Regulations, and Pfizer alleged that Apotex should not be entitled to damages, due to

Costs awarded on substantial indemnity basis for summary judgment motion

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada
-
May 28 2013

Abbott and Takeda had previously been successful in a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing Apotex’ claims for disgorgment of profits based

Intellectual property weekly abstracts bulletin

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada
-
May 27 2013

In this case, Apotex claimed damages pursuant to s. 8 of the NOC Regulations, and Pfizer alleged that Apotex should not be entitled to damages, due

Intellectual property weekly abstracts bulletin

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada, USA
-
May 22 2013

The Supreme Court has dismissed Eli Lilly of Canada Inc.’s leave on the issue, as summarized by the Court, as to whether the creation by the Federal

Teva Canada Innovation v. Attorney General of Canada

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada
-
May 8 2013

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (the PMPRB) ordered Teva to pay the Crown approximately $2.4 million for selling its product at an

Commissioner of Patents reverses examiner’s refusal to allow patent on basis of sound prediction and desired result arguments

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada
-
May 1 2013

The Application was rejected by the Examiner under section 2 of the Patent Act for containing claims for which the utility could not soundly be

Application for reissue denied

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
-
Canada
-
May 1 2013

The Commissioner concurred with the findings of the Reissue Board and held that the patent did not meet the requirements under subsection 47(1) of the