Eli Lilly has filed a “Notice of Intent” to challenge the ‘promise doctrine’ in Canadian patent law through NAFTA. The focus of the statement is on the law of the ‘promise’ of a patent in determining patent validity whether it complies with Canada’s obligations under TRIPs and NAFTA.
Tag Archives: PM(NOC)
Federal Court of Appeal on Inventive Concept
In a decision released Friday, the Federal Court of Appeal held that inventive concept is a question of law and application judges should look to determinations of inventive concept made in prior proceedings.
Continue reading Federal Court of Appeal on Inventive Concept
Is the sildenafil patent invalid?
In a decision released today, Justice Zinn held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to consider Apotex’s impeachment action and motion for summary judgment and declared Pfizer’s patent on Viagra, Canadian Patent No. 2,163,466 invalid.
Supreme Court on Viagra
In a decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada found Pfizer’s patent on sildenafil to be invalid for having an insufficient disclosure contrary to s.27(3) of the Patent Act.
Quantum Judgment
Last week, Justice Snider issued judgment for over $215 million in the Apotex v. Sanofi-Aventis ramipril proceeding under Section 8 of the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. After issuing reasons last May, the parties were directed to jointly calculate the quantum and judgment was issued based on this calculation.
Remedies for dismissed PM(NOC) Proceeding
Justice Macdonald dismissed a motion to strike the Statement of Claim in Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 2012 ONSC 3808 (atomoxetine) permitting claims under Section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, unjust enrichment, profits and Section 7(a) of the Trade-marks Act.
Reverse Payment Agreements
Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that reverse payment agreements or exclusion agreements between brands and the first generic under the Hatch-Waxman Act should be prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade. The action was a class proceeding brought by wholesalers and retailers of the drug K-Dur against Schering, In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation.
Brimonidine – Issues of Comity
Justice Hughes issued a decision in Allergen v. Apotex 2012 FC 767 (Brimonidine) earlier this week. He determined that Apotex’s allegation of obviousness was justified but granted the prohibition order on the basis that an earlier decision of Justice Crampton on the same patents, but different parties (2011 FC 1316) was contrary and therefore an issue of comity should be considered by the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision and a summary is available from Beeser Ramamoorthy.
Claiming under the Patentee
Master Short released a decision on the standing of patent licensees to be added as plaintiffs-by-counterclaim in an Ontario Court proceeding relating to lansoprazole.
Biosimilar litigation comes to Canada
A biosimilar PM(NOC) litigation proceeding was started recently involving the drug Filgrastim. The proceeding was started by Amgen Canada against Teva in T-989-12.