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 529

Punitive damages not available under section 8 of the PM (NOC) Regulations

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 17 2014

The Supreme Court of Canada has refused Teva’s application for leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which had upheld an order

Teva v Pfizer, or the “Viagra saga”: if there is no quid proper disclosure there can be no quo exclusive monopoly rights

  • Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 19 2012

Sildenafil is the active ingredient in Viagra, the blockbuster potency-enhancing drug marketed by Pfizer

Re-litigation by a patentee with a different party has the federal court been consistent in its approach?

  • SIM. IP Practice
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 26 2014

Over the past few years the pharmaceutical marketplace has seen an increase in patent "re-litigation" (where a patentee is involved in a second case

Listing patents against combination drugs in Canada ? Changes coming

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 1 2014

On Nov. 26, 2014, Industry Canada announced an important proposed change to the eligibility requirements for listing a patent against a drug in

Federal Court of Appeal holds that prior disclosure of racemate does not anticipate subsequent claim to enantiomer cipralex (escitalopram)

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 30 2010

On November 25, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed three related appeals by Apotex Inc. ("Apotex"), Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC ("Mylan") and Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Cobalt") (collectively "Generics") to set aside prohibition orders that had been issued by the Federal Court in respect of Canadian Patent No. 1,339,452 ("the '452 Patent") and the medicine escitalopram

Sandoz Canada v. Abbott

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • July 5 2010

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a decision of the Federal Court in a proceeding commenced pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations

Federal Court upholds validity of patent for escitalopram (CIPRALEX)

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • March 19 2013

Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) brought an action for impeachment seeking a declaration that Lundbeck’s Canadian Patent No. 1,339,452 (the “’452 Patent”) is

Pfizer seeks amendment of Supreme Court’s judgment on VIAGRA patent or alternatively a re-hearing on remedy

  • SIM. IP Practice
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 19 2012

In a rare move, Pfizer has filed a motion seeking to amend the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment on its VIAGRA patent, or alternatively for a re-hearing on the issue of remedy

Personalized medicine: patent issues in Canada and Europe

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada, European Union
  • -
  • October 16 2014

Canada Introduction 'Personalized medicine', in its broadest aspects, is essentially the tailoring of treatments to individual characteristics, needs

Supreme Court of Canada to hear landmark pharmaceutical section 8 damages case

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 4 2014

On October 30, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to Sanofi-Aventis' ("Sanofi") application for leave to appeal a decision of the