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 224

BC Court of Appeal overturns Class Certification in Patents Case, finding Patent Regime to be Complete Code in respect of Remedies
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • January 25 2016

In Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc., a unanimous division of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia restricted the ability of consumers to make claims


Standard of Review of Palpable and Overriding Error Not Applied in Appeal from Rule 51 Appeal
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • January 27 2016

This is an appeal from the Federal Court's (FC) decision (2015 FC 797), which upheld the Prothonotary's decision allowing the generic Respondent's


Statements in a generic’s Product Monograph were not found to amount to an inducement to infringe
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 13 2015

The Court has allowed a motion to strike portions of an application pursuant to Paragraph 6(5)(b) of the PM(NOC) Regulations. The generic respondent


Import Ban Quashed, and Health Canada Ordered to Retract Its Statements re Same
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • January 13 2016

Apotex et al brought a judicial review of the Minister of Health's (the Minister) decision to impose an import ban on products from two of Apotex'


Formulation patent found not to be infringed as a redacted excipient was not a “pentahydric or hexahydric alcohol”
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • April 22 2015

Apotex has successfully alleged that Teva’s patent to “Stable Compositions Containing Rasagiline” will not be infringed by Apotex’s use of a


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


Court grants prohibition order; finds allegations of obviousness, lack of utility and insufficiency not justified
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • January 20 2016

In a decision issued on November 18, 2015, the Federal Court allowed the proceeding, granting Leo Pharma a prohibition order in relation to its


Patent claim resulted from “skilled work”, not “creative work”, and is found to be obvious
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • December 3 2015

The Federal Court has dismissed an application for prohibition for obviousness. The invention was described as “to take the ‘naturally occurring'


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 to Issue Decision in Leave Application Re Claim for Unjust Enrichment in S. 8 Proceeding
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • January 13 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has announced that on Thursday, January 14, 2016 it will issue its decision in Apotex' application for leave to appeal