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 1,297

The TPP new rights for pharmaceutical patent holders in Canada
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • November 13 2015

The Canadian Government released the official consolidated text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on Nov., 5, 2015. This follows the

Court ordered third party discovery of supplier of API
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • February 7 2011

The case concerns an action for damages pursuant to s.8 of the NOC Regulations and a counterclaim for damages for patent infringement

Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2015 FC 671
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • July 7 2015

The parties moved under Rule 397 to modify the terms of the judgment in the proceeding, previously reported as 2015 FC 322 and summarized in our

Leave to Appeal to SCC: AstraZeneca Canada Inc et al v Apotex Inc et al (FCCA)
  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • Canada
  • March 10 2016

On March 10, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada granted AstraZeneca Canada Inc.'s ("AstraZeneca") application for leave to appeal from the decision of

Federal Court dismisses prohibition application for quetiapine tablets SEROQUEL XR
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • March 20 2013

AstraZeneca Canada Inc. and AstraZeneca UK Limited (“AstraZeneca”) brought an application pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of

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

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

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

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

Pleadings for disgorgement of profits and for an accounting of profits in s.8 damages not struck in Ontario court
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • August 1 2012

In this case, Apotex has claimed damages in Ontario Court pursuant to, inter alia, section 8 of the NOC Regulations. Lilly brought a motion to strike out parts of Apotex’ statement of claim