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 431

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

Dow prevails over Nova in polymer patent suit

  • Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 8 2014

The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) has prevailed in a Canadian patent infringement suit against Nova Chemicals Corporation (“Nova”) relating to Nova’s

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

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

Purdue Pharma denied patent listing

  • Heenan Blaikie LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 5 2010

Purdue Pharma v. Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Health, 2010 FC 738, an application for a judicial review of a decision made by the Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison (“OPML”), the Federal Court found that Purdue Pharma (“Purdue”) was not entitled to list a patent for oxycodone on Health Canada’s Patent Register in respect of its TARGIN oxycodonenaloxone combination product

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 bifurcates determination of Start Date for section 8 action

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • May 30 2014

This is an action commenced pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. Pfizer counterclaimed against Apotex

Canada: Federal Court prohibits the approval of generic Anastrozole ARIMIDEX

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • September 12 2011

On August 29, 2011 the Federal Court allowed an application by AstraZeneca Canada Inc. and AstraZeneca UK Limited (collectively “AstraZeneca”) 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 Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC (“Mylan”) in respect of its generic version of the drug anastrozole until after the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 1,337,420 (the “’420 Patent”

Federal Court grants injunction that allows infringing biologic drug to stay on the market

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • June 20 2014

Case: AbbVie Corporation, AbbVie Deutschland GMBH & Co. KG and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. v. Janssen Inc., 2014 FC 489 Drug: Ustekinumab (STELARA®

Federal Court of Appeal refuses to strike pleading of patent infringement ZYMAR (gatifloxacin)

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • April 27 2011

On April 14, 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Apotex Inc. and Apotex Pharmachem Inc. ("Apotex") from an order dismissing its motion to strike the statement of claim filed by Allergan, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc. and Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd ("Allergan") in a patent infringement action