PM(NOC)

June 13, 2017

FC Denies Prohibition Order Request; Finds Expert Blinding Persuasive But Not Primary Interest

2016 FC 382 - The FC concluded that Apotex’s allegations of non-infringement in respect of Shire's Canadian Patent were justified and accordingly denied Shire’s requested prohibition order.
June 6, 2017

Allergan fails to demonstrate to FC that Apotex’s allegations of invalidity are not justified

2016 FC 344 - Apotex alleged in its Notice of Allegation and submissions that the ‘632 Patent was invalid because it was obvious and lacked utility. The FC found that the allegation was justified.
May 9, 2017

Apotex’s Claims for Damages for Delayed Market Entry Allowed to Proceed

2017 ONSC 224 - Apotex sought compensation from Eli Lilly for damages suffered for delayed entry to the market for its generic version of olanzapine; the ONSC ordered Eli Lilly to pay Apotex a total of $20,000.
May 2, 2017

FCA Finds Provincial Limitation Periods May Apply to Patents Subject to the Old Patent Act

2017 FCA 9 - The FCA affirmed the FC decision that AstraZeneca’s patent was valid and infringed, accepted Apotex’s appeal with respects to limitation periods, and rejected AstraZeneca’s cross-appeal regarding punitive damages.
March 14, 2017

Federal Court Grants Prohibition Order on Generic Psoriasis-treating Ointment

2015 FC 1237 - The FC heard and granted an application by Leo Pharma to prohibit Teva Canada from being issued a Notice of Compliance under the PM(NOC) Regulations.
February 7, 2017

FC Affirms Prothonotary Decision Allowing Action to Continue on Allegations of Likely Future (Quia Timet) Infringement

2016 FC 336 - The FC affirmed Prothonotary Tabib’s decision to strike some of Gilead Science's pleadings and allow the infringement action to continue on the basis of amended allegations of a likely future (quia timet) infringement.
February 3, 2017

Does the Patent Act provide a “complete code” of remedies? ONSC allows the argument to proceed that it may not

2016 ONSC 7193 - The ONSC heard pleadings by Apotex and Pfizer concerning Pfizer’s, now invalid, patent for Viagra. Apotex had previously been prevented from manufacturing its own generic because of the Viagra patent, and now claimed damages for the delay in being able to market its own variant. The appeal was dismissed and Apotex’s claim was allowed to proceed unstruck.
January 3, 2017

FC Rules PM(NOC) Prohibition Application Not An Abuse of Process

2015 FC 1016 - In this decision, the FC permitted the applicant to proceed with its prohibition application, despite a previous decision finding that the patent in question was invalid.
October 21, 2016

FCA Clarifies Test for Obviousness-Type Double-Patenting

2016 FCA 119 - The FCA dismissed the appeal, which alleged that Canadian Patent No. 2,226,784 was invalid on the basis of obviousness-type double-patenting and for lack of utility due to no sound prediction. As a result, the ‘784 patent was upheld.
October 6, 2016

Pharmaceutical Patentees Could Face More than 100% of Actual Damages under PM(NOC) Regulations

2014 FCA 68 - Innovator pharmaceutical companies should be cautious and think twice about how aggressively they defend their patents as they could potentially face paying more than 100% of actual damages as an award under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations.