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.
- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Show all
- Article
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Corporate
- Domain Names
- Employment
- Expungement
- Expungement
- Grey Marketing
- Industrial Designs
- Licensing
- Obviousness
- Opposition
- Passing Off
- Patent
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Strategy
- PCK News
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Use
- Validity
- Abandonment
- Abstract Theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Bargain Theory
- Biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Branding
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- Chemical Patent
- CIPO
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- Commercial Success
- Common General Knowledge
- Confidential Information
- Confusion
- Contract
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Costs
- Counterfeit
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- COVID-19
- Damages
- Data Protection
- Design Patents
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- DNA Patents
- Domain Names
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- Due Care
- E-Commerce
- Enablement
- Estoppel
- Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Fair Use
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- File Wrapper Estoppel
- Food and Drug Regulations
- Fraud
- funding
- Generic Drugs
- Hague Agreement
- Indefiniteness
- Induced Infringement
- Industrial Designs
- Injunction
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- Inter Partes Review
- Investors
- IP Litigation
- IP Strategy
- IP Treaty
- IPIC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm
- Licensing IP
- Madrid Protocol
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- Novelty
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agent
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Fees
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Law
- Patent Lawyer
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trolls
- Patent Validity
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PM(NOC)
- PMPRB
- Prior Art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- Product Specificity
- Promise Doctrine
- Provisional Patent
- Punitive Damages
- Reinstatement
- Remedies
- SCOTUS
- Selection Patent
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Springboard Profits
- SRED
- Standard of Review
- Start-up
- Startups
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Technology
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Trademark Agent
- Trademark Expungement
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Law
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Registration
- Trademarks Act
- United States
- Use
- USPTO
- Utility
February 7, 2017
February 7, 2017
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
February 3, 2017
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
January 3, 2017
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.
November 23, 2016
November 23, 2016
2015 FC 247 - The Federal Court reminds us that a selection patent will typically require something more than routine testing to justify the reclaiming of a particular compound within a previously known class of compounds.
October 21, 2016
October 21, 2016
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
October 6, 2016
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.
October 5, 2016
October 5, 2016
2015 FCA 286 - An attack on the Federal Court’s slight rewording of the obvious-to-try test has proven unsuccessful. The FC referring to a 'fair expectation of success'" was not a reviewable error.
October 3, 2016
October 3, 2016
2015 FCA 191 - The FCA dismissed an appeal wherein Alcon sought to reverse a finding of invalidity against its patent by surreptitiously asking the FCA to reweigh the evidence as a challenge against the Federal Court Judge’s findings of fact and preferred expert evidence.
October 3, 2016
October 3, 2016
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.
August 22, 2016
August 22, 2016
2016 FC 720 - The FC bifurcated the issues of infringement and validity from any other section 8 issue in hopes that bifurcation would likely lead to a settlement of all the issues between the parties.
May 6, 2016
May 6, 2016
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.
April 22, 2016
April 22, 2016
2015 FC 1156 - The FC found that Idenix’s patent was invalid for a lack of utility, demonstrated or soundly predicted, and for insufficient disclosure.
April 11, 2016
April 11, 2016
2015 FC 570 - The FC favoured the respondent’s "blinded expert" evidence in which the experts provided their opinions before knowing what was claimed in the disputed patents.
April 5, 2016
April 5, 2016
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.
March 28, 2016
March 28, 2016
PAB 1384 - If a pharmaceutical patent is construed to make a promise, then that promise must relate to how the invention will ultimately be used – not simply to the properties of the pharmaceutical itself.
November 30, 2015
November 30, 2015
2015 FCA 249 - The Federal Court of Appeal clearly stated that the price regulation provisions apply not only to literal patent holders, but also to exclusive licensees of patents.
October 7, 2015
October 7, 2015
Gilead Sciences, Inc v Canada (Health), 2015 FC 610 - Gilead's assertion that its patent is valid would be relitigating old issues and an abuse of PM(NOC) proceedings.
September 16, 2015
September 16, 2015
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FC 770 - Novartis was able to uphold its patent against allegations of invalidity from Teva, but not without the Federal Court making a number of razor thin distinctions between what the patent promised and what it did not.
September 15, 2015
September 15, 2015
Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 166 - The FCA rejected the notion adopted by the Federal Court that a higher level of specificity is required to adhere to the Regulations than is required for an element to be claimed as a matter of claim construction, bringing the law in line with Industry Canada proposed amendments.
September 9, 2015
September 9, 2015
AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FCA 158 - The FCA acknowledged that the word “will” often refers to an expectation or goal rather than a promise, but still held that the FC did not err in finding that a promise was made when reading the patent as a whole from the eyes of a skilled reader.