2016 FCA 230 - The FCA found that the EXJADE patent was drafted so as to make an important distinction between the utilities of the Formula I and Formula II compounds, and thereby held the Formula II claims to a lesser promise, and dismissed Teva’s allegations of inutility.
2015 FC 125 - The existing patent was invalid on the grounds of lack of utility for having made a promise of utility that could not be demonstrated nor soundly predicted, was anticipated by a previous patent of the applicant that claimed an overlapping dosage range, and was also therefore made obvious by the same previous patent.
AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 1251 - The core of the Commissioner’s argument was that Janssen Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2010 FC 1123, broadened the prohibition against patents on methods of medical treatment to include generally claims which restrict the “how and when” a physician could administer a particular drug. The Court found that the Commissioner had misread Janssen.
Commissioner’s Decision # 1371 - The Commissioner refused to grant GlaxoSmithKline’s patent application for an “influenza vaccine formulation for intradermal delivery” due to obviousness since there was always a motivation to use the ID route, but it had always been impractical until the advent of a short needle device.
Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario v University of Utah Research Foundation, T-2249-14 - The CHEO will argue that the Long QT Patents that are inhibiting its ability to conduct medical testing claim unpatentable subject matter since the claimed nucleic acids are naturally occurring, encode for naturally occurring human genes, and were discovered by extracting genetic material from human beings. Validity of the method testing claims are also disputed.
D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc  FCAFC 115 - The Federal Court of Australia Full Court upheld the validity of Australian Patent No. 686004, which claims an isolated sequence of DNA useful for cancer diagnosis, as qualifying as a “manner of manufacture” and thus patentable subject matter pursuant to section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.
Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc, US SC No 12–398 (2013) - The US Supreme Court must determined that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.