Court of Appeal further clarifies section 8 damages framework
When a generic drug company is held off the market by an improper prohibition application, that generic is entitled to damages under... Read More
Failure to provide samples sinks YAZ non-infringement allegation
On October 22, 2013 Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment and Judgment in a prohibition... Read More
ACLASTA dosing regimen claims directed to unpatentable subject matter
On September 25, 1993 Mr. Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment in prohibition application between... Read More
“Probably, likely, or definitely” selection patent anticipated, obvious and not infringed
On July 12, 2012, Justice Kane of the Federal Court released the public Reasons for Judgment in Hoffman-La Roche’s prohibition application against... Read More
Lilly entitled to costs for moot ALIMTA prohibition application
On June 7, 2013, Justice Barnes of the Federal Court of Canada issued his Supplementary Reasons for Judgment dealing with the costs... Read More
VIAGRA patent not invalidated in prohibition application appeal
On June 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada granted in part Pfizer’s application for a modification of its reasons of the... Read More
Process steps an essential limitation in YASMIN product-by-process claims
On May 29, 2013, Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court of Canada, released his Reasons for Judgment in a prohibition application between Bayer... Read More
Apotex’s application for leave to appeal COMBIGAN prohibition order dismissed
On May 9, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) dismissed Apotex’s application for leave to appeal of a prohibition Order order issued... Read More
Date for assessing sufficiency of the specification is the publication date
On March 19, 2013, Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment in a prohibition application between... Read More
Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My! SEROQUEL XR formulation patent obvious
On March 7, 2013, Justice Near of the Federal Court of Canada, dismissed AstraZeneca’s prohibition applications against Teva in respect quetiapine fumarate... Read More
Technical complexity a lion in the path of NEXIUM obviousness challenge
Om March 5, 2013, Justice O’Keefe of the Federal Court of Canada released Reasons for Judgment in a prohibition application involving Ranbaxy... Read More
LYRICA use claim too broad and lacking utility
On February 4, 2013 Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada released his Reasons for Judgment dismissing a prohibition application involving... Read More
Withdrawal of ALIMTA NOA renders prohibition application moot
On January 14, 2013, Justice Barnes of the Federal Court of Canada issued his Reasons for Judgment in respect of a prohibition... Read More
Wrongly issued COMBIGAN prohibition order upheld for different reasons
On November 23, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal of Justice Hughes’ Judgment granting a prohibition Order in respect... Read More
LIPIDIL EZ – Absence of evidence of direct specific infringement sinks prohibition applications
On July 5, 2012, the Federal Court of Canada contemporaneously released public reasons in two matters (Court File Nos. T-991-10 and T-1184-10)... Read More
Sandoz’s LIPIDIL EZ non-infringement allegations justified
On June 15, 2012, Justice Zinn issued Judgments in two prohibition proceedings between Sandoz and Fournier in respect of fenofibrate tablets and... Read More
Court grants prohibition order despite obviousness finding; cites uncertainty in comity law as basis
On June 18, 2012, the Federal Court of Canada issued a Judgment and Reasons for Judgment in a prohibition proceeding between Allergan... Read More
On your mark, get set, go! Biosimilar litigation takes off in Canada
On May 18, 2012, Amgen Canada Inc. and Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) commenced a proceeding (Court File No. T-989-12) under the Patented Medicines... Read More
Ramipril section 8 damages – distinct “but for” worlds for each generic
The Federal Court recently decided several cases dealing with section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”). The first... Read More
Supreme Court of Canada denies leave to hear section 8 cases
On May 17, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada announced its decisions not to hear appeals in three section 8 cases: Apotex... Read More
Teva can assert Ratiopharm’s EFFEXOR XR section 8 claim
On May 8, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal of a judgement of Justice Hughes (2011 FC 1169) that... Read More
Federal Court of Appeal issues another decision dealing with “promise of the patent” [ARIMIDEX/anastrozole]
On April 11, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mylan’s appeal of a decision of Justice Rennie (2011 FC 1023) which... Read More
Federal Court of Appeal dismisses Mylan’s appeal of donepezil decision (ARICEPT)
On March 29, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) dismissed Mylan’s appeal of a decision of Justice Hughes (2011 FC 547)... Read More