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 540

Canadian patent judge takes a hard stand against generic CIALIS (tadalafil)

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 26 2015

On January 7, 2015, Justice de Montigny of the Federal Court released his judgment and reasons in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC

Federal Court revisits the issue of medical uses

  • Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 22 2015

In AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 1251, rendered December 22, 2014, the Federal Court allowed AbbVie's appeal from a

Order of prohibition granted in respect of use patent

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 26 2015

The Court found that Mylan’s allegations of lack of utility, and specifically lack of sound prediction, and obviousness-type double patenting were

Court finds claims do not cover method of medical treatment, orders that they issue

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 19 2015

In this decision, AbbVie brought a judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing to issue its patent. The issue was whether

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

Court refused to grant protective order covering NOA

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 19 2015

In the context of a proceeding brought pursuant to the NOC Regulations, Mylan sought a confidentiality that would allow it to designate portions of

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

Federal Court determines Minister's decisions granting NOCS based on administrative ANDSs cross-referencing licensed generics without requiring NOAs are wrong

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 10 2015

On December 19, 2014, the Federal Court set aside a decision of the Minister of Health granting a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Teva authorizing the

Generic companies seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the “promise of the patent”

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 9 2015

On December 23, 2014, Apotex Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC each filed Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) applications for leave to appeal the Federal

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”