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 1,091

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


Pharma in brief Ontario Court of Appeal closes the door on generic manufacturer claim for unjust enrichment under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • May 11 2015

On May 5, 2015, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Apotex’s appeal from the Ontario Divisional Court, which struck out Apotex’s claim for


Motion for reply evidence granted in part
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 1 2015

This is an appeal from the decision of a Prothonotary, denying leave to file reply evidence in a proceeding pursuant to the Patented Medicines


Speculation insufficient to establish indirect patent infringement in Canada
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • May 7 2015

The relevance of expert evidence in establishing indirect infringement of a pharmaceutical in Canada has been questioned. It is unclear what "facts"


Apotex denied claim for innovator's profits following PM(NOC) litigation
  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • Canada
  • May 7 2015

The ongoing quest by generic pharmaceutical companies for the disgorgement of innovator profits following litigation under the PM(NOC) Regulations


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 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


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


Proposed PMNOC Regulations amendments published for comment following dismissal of Viiv appeal re: listing claim for medicinal ingredient against fixed-dose combination
  • Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
  • Canada
  • May 4 2015

As we previously reported, Viiv's application against Teva for a prohibition Order regarding a combination product containing abacavir and lamivudine


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