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 59

Déjà vu all over again: CRTC considers re-imposing payment of benefits on BDU transactions
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • March 11 2011

In a brief amendment to the Notice of Consultation that initiated the upcoming vertical integration hearing, the CRTC has quietly added to the issues for discussion the possibility that benefits payments may be required in future applications for authority to transfer the ownership or control of broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs), but the low-key nature of the announcement belies the potentially significant impact of such a change in policy.


Federal Court finds Apotex infringed Merck's product-by-process patent for lovastatin
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • February 4 2011

In Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc., the Federal Court found Apotex to have infringed Merck’s Canadian Patent No. 1,161,380 (‘380 Patent), a product-by-process patent for the medicine lovastatin


Application for leave to appeal set off decision denied in SemCAMS proceeding
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • February 1 2011

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently denied an application by Celtic Exploration Ltd. ("Celtic") for leave to appeal a decision from a Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act (Canada) ("CCAA") proceeding involving Celtic and SemCAMS ULC ("SemCAMS").


Federal Court confirms that it will not set aside default judgment lightly
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • January 4 2011

A recent decision of the Federal Court emphasizes that defendants bear a significant burden in setting aside default judgments that arise because the defendant has simply failed to file a statement of defence within the allotted period of time.


Dedication of Merck patent insufficient to defeat allegation of double patenting
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • December 1 2010

A recent decision of the Federal Court expounded on the harm that can occur if two patents issue for the same invention.


Apotex succeeds in getting a NOC despite itself
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • December 1 2010

A recent Federal Court decision highlighted the differences in prohibition proceedings under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the NOC Regulations) and impeachment actions under the Patent Act.


Further "frustration" for employers dealing with employees on long term disability
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • October 27 2010

Dealing with employees who are on long-term disability is challenging at the best of times for employers.


Eli Lilly patent for atomoxetine for use in treating ADHD invalid for lack of utility
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • October 19 2010

Novopharm Limited (now known as Teva Canada Limited but hereafter referred to as Novopharm) sought a declaration under s. 60(1) of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 that Eli Lilly and Company’s (Lilly’s) Canadian Patent No. 2,209,735 (the ‘735 Patent) was invalid and void.


"Grave consequences" defence may be asserted against a generic in a Section 8 action under the PM(NOC) regulations
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • September 14 2010

In an action brought by Apotex Inc. (Apotex) to recover damages under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (SOR93-133) (Regulations) in respect of the medicine modafinil, Shire Canada Inc. (Shire) brought this motion for leave to amend its statement of defence, alleging two new defences.


Conditions for a valid selection patent does not constitute an independent basis for attacking validity
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • August 18 2010

Eli Lilly, the plaintiff in a patent infringement action, was successful in appealing a decision of the Federal Court which had found Eli Lilly’s Canadian Letters Patent No. 2,041,113 (the ‘113 Patent) relating to the medicine olanzapine (Zyprexa) invalid on the basis that it was not a proper selection patent.