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 440

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

Supreme Court of Canada to hear landmark pharmaceutical section 8 damages case

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 4 2014

On October 30, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to Sanofi-Aventis' ("Sanofi") application for leave to appeal a decision of the

“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

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

Pleadings amendment to a damages reference not allowed found to be a collateral attack on the final judgment

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

Apotex moved to file an amended Responding Statement of Issues on a reference pursuant to Rule 153. According to the Court, Apotex wants to argue

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

Supreme Court to consider section 8 damage quantification

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 31 2014

The Supreme Court of Canada announced yesterday that it has granted leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in a proceeding

Application for leave to appeal granted - 30 October 2014

  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 30 2014

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced March 14, 2014. The applicants (collectively, “Sanofi”) are the pat

Patent not eligible for listing: patent claiming one medicinal ingredient,but directed to a fixed-dose combination of medicines

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 15 2014

This was an appeal from two decisions for three proceedings before Prothonotary Milczynski, in which she determined that a patent could not be listed