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 1,003

Federal court affirms principle of claim differentiation in evaluating utility
  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • Canada
  • June 30 2015

Justice O'Reilly of the Federal Court has rejected Teva's allegations of invalidity regarding Novartis's patent covering its iron chelator product


The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals agrees that prenatal diagnostic methods are not patent eligible
  • Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
  • Canada
  • June 30 2015

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. et al. V. Sequenom Inc. (PDF), case number


Pharma in brief - amended PM(NOC) Regulations now in force patents claiming single medicinal ingredients are eligible for listing on the patent register for combination drugs
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • Canada
  • June 26 2015

Previously announced amendments to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PM(NOC) Regulations) were registered and brought


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


Teva v Pfizer, or the “Viagra saga”: if there is no quid proper disclosure there can be no quo exclusive monopoly rights
  • Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
  • Canada
  • November 19 2012

Sildenafil is the active ingredient in Viagra, the blockbuster potency-enhancing drug marketed by Pfizer


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


Pharma in brief - Federal Court recommendations on “increased proportionality in complex litigation” impact Canadian pharmaceutical patent litigation
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • July 3 2015

The Federal Court issued a Notice to the Parties and the Profession dated June 24, 2015 (the "Notice") containing its initial recommendations


The Supreme Court of Canada VIAGRA case: 5 messages technology businesses should receive
  • Bennett Jones LLP
  • Canada
  • November 12 2012

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided valuable guidance to patent agents and litigators as to how Canadian patents will be read and enforced (Teva Canada Limited v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2012 SCC 60


Federal Court of Appeal clarifies misunderstanding: factual basis and line of reasoning need not be disclosed in the patent
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • June 8 2015

In a decision released on June 3, 2015 (2015 FCA 137), a unanimous Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) dismissed Apotex’s appeal of Justice O’Reilly’s


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”