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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance

Results: 1-10 of 2,252

One hip trend: judicial scrutiny in medical product liability class actions
  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • Canada
  • June 15 2015

In 2014, an overall trend emerged towards closer judicial scrutiny of potential class action cases, particularly in the context of medical devices

Patent utility update in Canada clarity may not be explicitly promised
  • SIM. IP Practice
  • Canada
  • June 4 2015

In the past five years, the Canadian Federal Court has invalidated several patents based on an arguably “technical” deficiency the

Historic Quebec lawsuit against tobacco companies: the Superior Court awards more than $15 billion in damages
  • Lavery de Billy LLP
  • Canada
  • June 15 2015

In a decisive victory for the Plaintiffs in class actions against the three Canadian leading tobacco companies, the Québec Superior Court ordered the

Northburn Prescriptions Ltd. (c.o.b. Northburn Remedy’s RX) v. British Columbia
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • December 30 2014

The Court declined the Petitioner's application for a stay of execution against the set-off by the Respondent Ministry of Health against monies

Federal Court of Appeal affirms rejection of heightened sound prediction patent disclosure requirements
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • June 12 2015

Allergan obtained a prohibition order against Apotex under section 6 of the PMNOC Regulations with respect to the drug bimatoprost

The Supreme Court refuses to grant leave to hear “promise of the patent” appeals
  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • Canada
  • April 27 2015

On April 23, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to hear an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Apotex Inc v Pfizer 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

Formulation patent allegations of non-infringement, obviousness and lack of utility justified
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • March 2 2015

Servier sought a prohibition order against Apotex in relation to its DIAMICRON MR gliclazide product. The application was dismissed. The patent at

Federal Court of Appeal clarifies misunderstanding: factual basis and line of reasoning need not be disclosed in the patent
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • June 8 2015

In a decision released on June 3, 2015 (2015 FCA 137), a unanimous Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) dismissed Apotex’s appeal of Justice O’Reilly’s

When is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? When it is used to disqualify in-house counsel
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • February 28 2014

A powerful tool in the litigation arsenal is the bringing of a motion to remove counsel from a file, either because she possesses disqualifying