2017 FC 857 - The Federal Court upheld the Minister of Health’s decision to cancel reconsideration for Apo-Omeprazole Magnesium Tablets manufactured by Apotex Inc. This is yet another failed attempt by Apotex to obtain approval for the magnesium tablet form of its anti-ulcer drug.
PAB 1420 - Canadian Patent Application No. 2,529,210 filed by Assurant Inc. for a system that routes customer calls based on a sales agent’s past performance was rejected by the Patent Appeal Board, at least for the reasons of non-statutory subject matter and obviousness.
2017 FC 777 - The FC rejected Teva’s allegations that Pfizer's Canadian patent was obvious and lacked utility. The FC found that the POSITA would not have been able to predict the novel crystalline form taught by the patent, and that the subject-matter of the invention claimed in the patent was useful.
2017 FC 774 - The FC granted Pfizer's order pursuant to Section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a NOC to Apotex, with respect to a Canadian patent The FC found, on a balance of probabilities, that Apotex’s allegations of obviousness, inutility, non-infringement, overpromising, anticipation and double patenting were not justified.
2016 FCA 267 - Apotex unsuccessfully sought to show that the FCA had erred in another decision by not following the SCC's decision in Whirlpool. Apotex also unsuccessfully argued that the FC had erred by finding the tadalafil patent to have sufficient disclosure.
2017 FC 548 - In this application for judicial review over s. 5 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the FC agreed with the AG who argued that since another innovator also had patents listed on the Patent Register pertaining to products to which Innovator Company made comparisons, the other innovator was a necessary respondent to the application.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - The US CAFC reversed the decision of a district court in part, finding that the claims in a software patent were patent-eligible, and reversed the finding that the claims were anticipated, but affirmed the district court’s decision that there was no infringement.