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.

June 7, 2013

FC Clarifies Purposive Construction of Product-by-Process Claims

Bayer Inc. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals, 2013 FC 573 Bayer sought an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance (NOC) to Cobalt, […]
May 29, 2013

PM(NOC): s. 8 Issues Circumscribed by Antecedent s. 6 Proceeding; s. 6 Claim Construction Binding on s. 8 Proceeding in Absence of Strong Reason to the Contrary

Apotex Inc. v Pfizer Canada Inc. – 2013 FC 493 Apotex claimed damages under s. 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations on grounds that it incurred a […]
May 3, 2013

PMPRB’s Copaxone Decision Unreasonable in its Application of s. 85(1) of the Patent Act

Teva Canada Innovation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 448 Teva asked the Court to set aside a decision of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board […]
March 27, 2013

FC Rejects Ranbaxy’s Allegation that Astrazeneca’s Patent for Enteric Coating of Omeprazole Is Invalid for Obviousness

Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc., 2013 FC 232 Astrazeneca brought an application under section 5 the PM(NOC) Regulations defending Canadian Patent No. 2,170,647 […]
March 26, 2013

Hughes J. Holds the Relevant Date for Assessing Sufficiency of a Canadian Patent Is the Date of Publication

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2013 FC 283 Novartis brought two applications under the provisions of the PM(NOC) Regulations to restrain the Minister […]
March 15, 2013

FC Holds CIPRALEX Patent Is Valid, Apotex Must Account for Profits of Infringement

Apotex Inc. v. H. Lunbeck A/S, 2013 FC 192 Apotex sought a declaration of invalidity against Lundbeck’s Canadian patent 1,339,452 (‘452) covering the serotonin reuptake inhibitor […]
March 13, 2013

Ongoing Infringement Trial Not Grounds for ex turpi causa Argument to Delay Determination of s. 8 Damages under the PM(NOC) Regulations

AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2013 FCA 77 AstraZeneca appeals the trial court’s decision in a proceeding commenced by Apotex under s. 8 of the […]
March 13, 2013

FC Finds Teva’s Allegation Justified that the SEROQUEL Patent is Obvious

AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2013 FC 245 AstraZeneca seeks an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to […]
March 4, 2013

FC Invalidates Four of the GLEEVEC Patent Claims for Inutility Due to Lack of Sound Prediction

Teva Canada Limited v. Novartis AG, 2013 FC 141 Novartis is the owner of Canadian Patent No. 2,093,203 (the '203 Patent) covering imatinib, the active ingredient […]
February 27, 2013

Teva and Apotex’s Allegations, that the GLEEVEC Patent Is Invalid, Are Not Justified

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2013 FC 142 Novartis is the owner of Canadian Patent No. 2,093,203 (the '203 Patent) covering imatinib mesylate, the […]