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: 11-20 of 1,121

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


Supreme Court dismisses appeal from the bench in Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex, Inc.
  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • Canada
  • May 8 2015

On April 21st, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed from the bench an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal decision inApotex Inc. v


Federal Court rejects generic’s non-infringing alternative defence and awards compound interest for patent infringement damages
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • February 2 2015

On January 23, 2015, the Federal Court released its public reasons for Judgment granting Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly Canada, Inc


Reply affidavits allowed when new documents introduced in responding evidence
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • January 9 2014

In this case, there is a partial reversal of evidence. Apotex brought a motion for leave to file reply evidence. Allergan did not oppose parts of the


Leave to intervene denied on the basis of no additional insight and delay
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • June 17 2015

This was a motion by Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) for leave to intervene in the appeal of a decision relating to


Court enforces a settlement agreement even though one party denied such an agreement existed
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 22 2015

Allergan brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement that Apotex denies was made. Allergan had sued for infringement and Apotex wrote a


Bayer Inc. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company, 2013 FC 1061 : methods of medical treatment held unpatentable, promise of a patent must be explicit
  • Heenan Blaikie LLP
  • Canada
  • November 11 2013

On October 22, 2013, the Federal Court released its decision regarding Bayer's application to prohibit the Minister of Health from issuing Cobalt a


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”


Federal Court grants one of three prohibition applications for VIGAMOX eye drops containing moxifloxacin hydrochloride
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • June 1 2014

This latest decision from the Federal Court is consistent with a recent trend towards a more literal construction of patent claims. The Court


Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc (2010 FCA 240)
  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • Canada
  • October 27 2010

This was an appeal of the decision of Madame Justice Gauthier (in the Federal Court) who had found that although Lilly met its burden to prove that Apotex infringed eight Lilly process patents related to the manufacture of the antibiotic cefaclor for material imported before June 3, 1998, Lilly failed to do so for the cefaclor imported into Canada after June 3, 1998