Double Patenting

December 12, 2017
overpromising

Federal Court shoots down an attempted revival of the promise doctrine

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.
November 7, 2017
tadalafil

Apotex Fails to Change FCA’s Opinion in Tadalafil Case

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.
May 6, 2016

Law Remains Unsettled Regarding Appropriate Date for Assessing Obviousness-type Double Patenting

2015 FC 875 - The FC noted that the law is unsettled when it comes to determining the appropriate date for assessing obvious-type double patenting.
October 27, 2014

Expert witnesses proven to be pivotal in Dow Chemical patent infringement suit

Dow Chemical Co v NOVA Chemicals Corp, 2014 FC 844 - The Federal Court found that NOVA Chemicals infringed Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705, owned by The Dow Chemical Company, by NOVA’s use of its “SURPASS” polyethylene product. Allegations of invalidity for lack of utility, claims broader than any invention made or disclosed, anticipation, obviousness, double patenting, and insufficiency of the specification were unsuccessful.