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 504

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

Markush claims can pose a risk of patent invalidity

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 28 2011

As patent law in Canada continues to evolve in significant ways, it is important to remind ourselves of cases from the past few years that continue to impact patent drafting today and to influence the validity of patents, especially pharmaceutical patents in Canada

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies emerge from the pipeline on both sides of the Atlantic

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada, European Union
  • -
  • March 7 2014

The European Medicines Agency ("EMEA") made its biosimilar monoclonal antibody guidelines effective in December 20121. Less than a year later, in

Federal court dismisses notion that patents should be given only one interpretation for all purposes

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 19 2014

In a pair of simultaneously released decisions on June 13, 2014, Justice O'Reilly allowed Allergan's applications (the "Applications") prohibiting

Methods of medical treatment and dosage claims

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 28 2011

In Canada, claims to methods of medical treatment are considered to fall outside the definition of invention according to section 2 of the Patent Act and a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Court finds AstraZeneca patent to esomeprazole (nexium) invalid for lack of sound prediction and obviousness

  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • September 9 2010

This was an application brought by AstraZeneca under the provisions of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a notice of compliance to Apotex for 20 and 40 mg esomeprazole magnesium tablets until after the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 2,139,653 (the ‘653 patent

Heenan Blaikie “grinds out” another win for Teva

  • Heenan Blaikie LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 13 2014

On January 13, 2014, the Federal Court dismissed an application by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, LLC and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp

USPTO issues new subject matter guidance post-Myriad and Prometheus

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • March 7 2014

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a new guidance document for Examiners on March 4, 2014, effective immediately

Reply affidavits allowed when new documents introduced in responding evidence

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 9 2014

In this case, there is a partial reversal of evidence. Apotex brought a motion for leave to file reply evidence. Allergan did not oppose parts of the

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”