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 505

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

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

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

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”

Federal Court of Appeal updates and confirms “promise of a patent” doctrine in Canada

  • Marks & Clerk
  • -
  • Canada, United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 17 2013

A Canadian Federal Court of Appeal decision earlier this year confirmed the presence of the "promise of a patent" doctrine in Canada, meaning that

Dispelling the Myriad gene patent harmonization myth

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • Australia, Canada, European Union, France, Germany, Japan, USA
  • -
  • April 30 2013

In the wake of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Myriad "gene patent" case, most commentators are predicting that the Court will uphold the

The Supreme Court of Canada VIAGRA case: 5 messages technology businesses should receive

  • Bennett Jones LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 12 2012

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided valuable guidance to patent agents and litigators as to how Canadian patents will be read and enforced (Teva Canada Limited v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2012 SCC 60

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

Court of Appeal comment on judicial comity - Apotex Inc. v. Allergan Inc., 2012 FCA 308, November 23, 2012 - brimonidine-timop

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • December 14 2012

Justice Noël writing for the Court of Appeal disagreed with Apotex’s appeal of Justice Hughes’ decision to grant an order of prohibition with respect of the NOC for Apo-brimonidine-timop until expiry of the relevant patent

Federal court considers “functionally” - limited claims in a biologic case

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 22 2014

The Federal Court of Canada recently issued a decision in AbbVie Corporation v. Janssen Inc.,2014 FC 55, involving infringement and validity of a