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 1,395

Court dismisses motion for Confidentiality Order
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • May 18 2017

The Court dismissed Teva's motion for a confidentiality order. The underlying proceeding is an action by Teva to recover from Janssen and others


That's a wrap: Springboard profits, full cost accounting, and more from the Federal Court in Dow v. Nova
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • May 11 2017

In a recent decision (Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp, 2017 FC 350) the Federal Court has addressed an assortment of issues that can arise


What the Supreme Court of Canada was not told about patent utility
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • May 11 2017

On November 8, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) heard an appeal by Astrazeneca regarding the validity of a patent covering its NEXIUM product


Findings Made in Section 8 Case to Allow Determination of Quantum of Damages
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • May 10 2017

In this case, Teva is seeking compensation pursuant to s. 8 of the NOC Regulations for having been prevented from coming to market with its generic


Canadian Court of Appeal has Something to Say on Obviousness: Critical of Rigid Tests and Using a Solution-Based Identification of the Inventive Concept that Excludes Serendipitous Discoveries Means Atazanavir Salt Obvious
  • Aird & Berlis LLP | Aird & McBurney LP
  • Canada
  • May 8 2017

The Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") recently affirmed a Federal Court ("FC") finding that an antiviral salt was obvious, although based on different


Teva awarded section 8 damages regarding pregabalin and olanzapine
  • Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh
  • Canada
  • April 27 2017

On March 30 and April 4, 2017, the Federal Court released two decisions on the merits under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of


Just How Predictable Must the Invention Be to Lose Patent Protection? Depends on the Inventive Concept
  • Bennett Jones LLP
  • Canada
  • April 21 2017

Only a true invention can be patented; a patent claim to an invention is not valid if the invention was obvious. Assessing obviousness can be thought


Court of Appeal Grants Appeal as it Relates to Duty to Mitigate
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 19 2017

In this decision, the Court of Appeal was considering an appeal by Apotex of various findings of the Court relating to its action seeking damages from


Court of Appeal Dismisses Appeal for Different Reasons and Provides Review of the Obvious to Try Test
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 19 2017

The Court of Appeal dismissed Bristol-Myers Squibb's appeal from the Trial Judge's decision refusing its application for a writ of prohibition on the


Federal Court of Appeal provides much-needed clarity on the “obvious to try” test and meaning of “inventive concept”
  • Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
  • Canada
  • April 18 2017

The Federal Court of Appeal (the Court) has now provided much-needed clarity and guidance on two critical points in Canadian patent law