Pharmaceutical Patent
Pharmaceutical inventions have been the subject of special provisions in the past, the likes of which have not been applied to other inventions. Furthermore, pharmaceuticals are the subject of much government regulation outside of the patent system.
April 20, 2022
The Federal Court disagreed with Health Canada's interpretation of data protection regulations, once again reversing approval of pediatric drug RUZURGI.
January 24, 2022
Outside Canada, Teva’s Copaxone® 40mg/mL dosing patents have been invalidated for obviousness, making way for generic competitors.
August 9, 2021
2021 FCA 154: The FCA held that overbreadth is not an “improper re-emergence of the promise doctrine”. Overbreadth is supported by bargain theory and s. 27 of the Act.
July 27, 2021
2021 FCA 137: On July 12, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal issued a decision dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Health denying data protection for a drug. Janssen Inc. had sought protection for its drug SPRAVATO but was rejected on the basis that it was not an “innovative drug” eligible for such protection.
January 19, 2021
2020 QCCS 4541: Court held that forthcoming amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations are unconstitutional and infringe on provincial powers.
April 16, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2018-2097 — The CAFC ruled that Valeant's patent for Relistor(R) is prima facie obvious based on similar compounds with overlapping pH ranges.
March 9, 2020
2020 FCA 30; 2020 FCA 31 – Janssen and Celltrion will return to court in June after the FCA overturned a lower court decision regarding a Remicade patent.
November 25, 2019
The rising cost of patented medicines is an important topic in the United States and Canada. In the United States, the White House is promising to...
October 4, 2019
At the 2019 Waterloo Innovation Summit, global thought leaders discussed oncoming disruptions to healthcare and challenges faced by healthtech start-ups.
September 20, 2019
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.