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

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

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”

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

The Supreme Court of Canada VIAGRA case: 5 messages technology businesses should receive

  • Bennett Jones LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 12 2012

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided valuable guidance to patent agents and litigators as to how Canadian patents will be read and enforced (Teva Canada Limited v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2012 SCC 60