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: 11-20 of 504

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

  • Marks & Clerk LLP
  • -
  • 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

Apotex successful in establishing section 8 damages liability of Pfizer regarding azithromycin

  • Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • May 28 2013

In very general terms, section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations ("Regulations") provides for liability of an innovator

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

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

Patent held invalid for not meeting promise of improved therapeutic profile

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • July 10 2014

Apotex was successful in the previous NOC Proceeding. It came to market with an esomeprazole product. AstraZeneca sued for patent infringement and

Federal Court upholds patent on Cellcept: found useful, non-obvious

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • July 21 2011

On July 13, 2011, Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court granted an application commenced by Hoffmann-La Roche under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing a NOC to Apotex Inc. for its generic version of the brand drug, Cellcept (mycophenolate mofetil (“MMF”)), until the expiry of Hoffmann-La Roche’s Canadian Patent 1,333, 285

Ontario court grants summary judgment dismissing Apotex’s claim for unjust enrichment

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 22 2013

On January 15, 2013, the Honourable Justice Quigley of the Ontario Superior Court granted summary judgment to Abbott and Takeda, denying Apotex's

Supplemental protection certificates (SPCs): the search for clarity goes on when is a marketing authorisation to be relied on?

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • March 25 2013

In another attempt to clarify the basic criteria for SPC eligibility, Mr. Justice Arnold has referred AstraZeneca AB v Comptroller-General 2012

Merck v Apotex, PMNOC proceedings, dorzolamide, October 22, 2010

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 24 2010

This proceeding for an order of prohibition was a companion case to the case described below

Purdue Pharma v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 132, (April 14, 2011) oxycodone naloxone patent listing case

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 1 2011

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, finding that the patent at issue was not eligible for listing