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 211

Bifurcation of Infringement and Validity Issues in Section 8 Action
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • August 10 2016

This is a motion for bifurcation in an action brought pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations


Appeal of NOC Proceeding Dismissed as Moot, Despite Ongoing Section 8 Proceeding
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • July 27 2016

Amgen was unsuccessful in a proceeding brought pursuant to the NOC Regulations. It appealed that decision. Apotex brought the within motion to


Dismissal of Motion to Vary Trial Decision in S. 8 case due to Later Infringement Finding Upheld on Appeal
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • July 27 2016

AstraZeneca has appealed a decision on its motion seeking to vary a judgment in a decision on the merits of a section 8 case. Damages were awarded to


Prothonotary's Dismissal of a PM(NOC) application pursuant to s. 6(5)(b) upheld on appeal
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • July 7 2016

Celltrion brought a motion pursuant to s. 6(5)(b) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulation (the NOC Regulations) to have the


Order of Prohibition Granted in respect of Compound Patent but Refused in respect of Patent Relating to Salt
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • July 7 2016

This is an application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations related to two patents. The first patent (the '840 Patent


Court awards damages for patent infringement in second part of a bifurcated decision
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • June 30 2016

Court awards damages for patent infringement in second part of a bifurcated decision Janssen Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2016 FC 593 Drug:


Pleadings amendments are allowed to particularize what a party would have done in the "but for" world
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • June 15 2016

This is an action where Apotex has claimed section 8 damages against AstraZeneca. The Court had previously ruled on a motion to determine objections


Hearsay statements regarding the generic's ability to supply in the "but for" world should have been excluded
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • June 15 2016

A Judge of the Federal Court had previously awarded Teva section 8 damages under the PM(NOC) Regulations. The Court provided the key findings of fact


A finding of a settlement agreement is overturned because counsel did not have the authority to bind his client
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • May 25 2016

The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned the earlier finding that Allergan and Apotex had settled their patent infringement litigation (2015 FC


The Federal Court of Appeal determines the incorrect date to assess obviousness-type double patenting, but leaves the determination of the correct date for another day
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 28 2016

The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld an earlier decision (2015 FC 17) prohibiting Mylan from obtaining its Notice of Compliance until after the