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 1,028

FCA resurrects non-infringing alternative defence
  • Dimock Stratton LLP
  • Canada
  • August 6 2015

Until now, the standard narrative in Canadian law was that a non-infringing alternative defence was not available to an infringer seeking to limit


Non-infringing alternative is relevant to damages, but not made out on facts
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • August 5 2015

Merck was successful in a patent infringement action. A separate damages reference was held where the Judge awarded lost profits and a reasonable


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”


Pharma in brief - non-infringing alternative (NIA) defence may be relevant in patent damages quantification: “could” and “would” an NIA have been used?
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • August 6 2015

In the liability phase, the Federal Court (FC) found that Canadian Patent No. 1,161,380 (380 Patent) was valid and infringed by Apotex. In the


Patents found obvious; subsequent appeal moot
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • March 6 2015

Janssen Inc (Janssen) brought two Applications pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for orders


Federal Court upholds validity of patent for escitalopram (CIPRALEX)
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • March 19 2013

Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) brought an action for impeachment seeking a declaration that Lundbeck’s Canadian Patent No. 1,339,452 (the “’452 Patent”) is


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


Pharma in brief - Federal Court of Appeal relaxes the “perfect match” requirement for patent listing under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • July 28 2015

The Minister of Health refused to list a patent on the Patent Register in respect of a fixed-dose combination product because it did not contain a


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


Supreme Court of Canada dismisses first section 8 damages appeal
  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
  • Canada
  • April 28 2015

On April 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Sanofi-Aventis' appeal concerning a claim by Apotex for section 8 damages under the Patented