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 1,308

Claim For Section 8 Damages Struck But Novel Cause Of Action Survives In Ontario Suit Re: Viagra Patent
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • September 22 2016

In this decision (2016 ONSC 4966), the Ontario Court dismissed Apotex’s claim for damages under s. 8 of the NOC Regulations in the face of a motion to

Obviousness double patenting in Canada not so obvious
  • SIM. IP Practice
  • Canada
  • May 16 2016

The recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. et al.,2016 FCA 119 ("Mylan"), highlights

Claims under Section 8 of the NOC Regulations and under Ashby v. White struck in Ontario Court
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • August 24 2016

In the Ontario Court, Apotex claimed damages pursuant to, inter alia , section 8 of the NOC Regulations. Pfizer brought a motion to strike out parts

Federal Court dismisses application for a prohibition order in respect of PATADAY eye drop solution
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • March 18 2014

This case concerns a proposed generic version of the brand name drug PATADAY, an eye drop solution used to treat allergic and inflammatory eye

Canada PM(NOC) decision: Federal Court judge criticizes “very sketchy” disclosure in a CIALIS patent
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • March 30 2015

On February 2, 2015 Justice de Montigny of the Federal Court released his judgment and reasons in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC

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

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 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

More than a pinky promise: recent developments to the promise doctrine in patent law
  • Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP
  • Canada
  • November 17 2015

Don't want your patent invalidated? Then you should diligently vet any promissory language in that patent because, as the following cases illustrate

Canada: Federal Court of Appeal upholds prohibition application for zoledronate (ACLASTA)
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • Canada
  • October 23 2013

This is an appeal from a decision of Justice Hughes, allowing an application for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of