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 523

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

Sanofi-Aventis, et al. V. Apotex Inc., et al.

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 10 2014

On October 30, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision in Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis

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

Court affirms utility of Gleevec patent

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • February 20 2013

"Sound prediction's introduction into Canadian law was not, as I understand it, to give a crushing hammer to those who challenge patents." Snider J

CETA update our previously reported “good news” is maintained

  • Baker & McKenzie
  • -
  • Canada, European Union
  • -
  • November 11 2014

On September 26, 2014, the Government of Canada released the consolidated text for the Canada EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA

Leave to appeal to SCC granted for a section 8 damages case

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 3 2014

The Supreme Court has granted leave in a proceeding pursuant to section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations. Some of the issues to be decided in this

Court of Appeal again interprets utility requirement in Celebrex FCA

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

The Federal Court of Appeal has again discussed the so-called “promise doctrine” in its October 30, 2014 decision of Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc

“Gene Patent” controversy comes to Canada

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • November 4 2014

Patents related to isolated DNA corresponding to a gene, as well as methods claiming the diagnostic use of such DNA sequences are often referred to

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

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”