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
- PM(NOC)
- Procedure
- Prosecution
- recognition
- Services
- Summary
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-mark
- Use
- Validity
- 35 US Code §101
- 3D printing
- Abandonment
- abstract theorems
- Abuse of Process
- Accounting of Profits
- acquired distinctiveness
- actions
- actual notice
- agreement
- Alice/Mayo Test
- Ambiguity
- Amendments
- Anticipation
- Appeal
- Apple
- application
- application fee
- arbitrary
- arbitration
- Artificial Intelligence
- Assignment
- Australia
- Bad Faith
- Bargain Theory
- Bill C-31
- Bill C-43
- Bill C-8
- Bill C-86
- Biologics
- biosimilar
- Biotech Patents
- Blockchain
- border measures
- Brand
- broadcasting
- budget
- burden of proof
- business
- CAFC
- Canada
- Canada Gazette
- Cannabis Law
- causal link
- cdrp
- CEEO
- Certificate of Supplementary Protection
- champerty
- Chemical Patent
- chemistry
- ciba
- CIPO
- CIPO errors
- CIRA
- Claim Construction
- Class Actions
- clerical error
- College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
- combination drugs
- commissioner
- Common General Knowledge
- Complete Code
- Confidential Information
- confidentiality
- confidentiality order
- Conflict of Interest
- Confusion
- Constitution
- consumer goods
- contract
- contributory infringement
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- copyright test
- corrections
- Costs
- counterfeit
- COVID-19
- CSP
- cybersecurity
- Damages
- Data
- Data Protection
- deadline
- defamation
- defences
- Delay to Market Entry
- descriptive
- Design Patents
- deviation
- digital infringement
- disclosure
- Discovery
- Distinctiveness
- Diversity
- division of powers
- divisionals
- DNA Patents
- domain names
- dominant feature
- Dosage Range
- Double Patenting
- doubtful cases
- Due Care
- Duty of Candor
- E-Commerce
- Early dismissal
- economics
- Employment
- errors
- essentiality of elements
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- Evidence
- examination quality
- examination statistics
- Examiner
- Expert Blinding
- Expert Evidence
- expiry
- Expungement
- extraterritoriality
- Fair Use
- federal circuit
- Federal Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- fees
- file wrapper
- Filing
- filing date
- filing fee
- financial services
- Food and Drug Regulations
- foreign issue estoppel
- forum selection
- fraud
- Free World Trust
- frivolous
- funding
- future infringement
- generics
- geographical indications
- Good Faith
- goods
- Government
- Grace Period
- grey marketing
- Hague
- Health Canada
- Hearsay
- Honest Contractual Performance
- ICSID
- Illegality
- Improver
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement
- Industrial Designs
- inherent distinctiveness
- Injunction
- Injunctions
- Innovation
- Innovative Drugs
- Insufficient Disclosure
- Intellectual Property
- intent
- Inter Partes Review
- interlocutory injunction
- Internet
- Internship
- intra vires
- Investors
- IP Lawyer
- IP Strategy
- IPIC
- IPO
- ISP
- IT patent
- ITC
- Jurisdiction
- Late fee
- Legal Retainer
- legal test
- Legislative Reform
- Liability
- Licensing
- life science
- limitation periods
- Litigation
- litigation funding agreement
- Madrid Protocol
- Maintenance Fee
- Marking Requirement
- materiality
- medical
- method
- Methods of Medical Treatment
- misleading
- motion
- Motion to dismiss
- Motion to strike
- NAFTA
- national phase entry
- Natural Health Product
- new evidence
- Non-Infringing Alternative
- Non-Practicing Entity
- notice of allegation
- notice to rectify
- Novelty
- obivous error
- Obviousness
- Official Marks
- On-Sale Bar
- ontario
- Overbreadth
- Ownership & Inventorship
- Passing Off
- Patent Act
- Patent Agents
- Patent Appeal Board
- Patent Application
- Patent Drafting
- Patent Infringement
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Office
- patent office errors
- patent practicioner
- patent prosecution
- patent requirement
- Patent Rules
- Patent Strategy
- Patent Term Adjustment
- Patent Textbook
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Patent Trolls
- patentability
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Patents
- PCT
- Pharmaceutical Patent
- Pharmaceutical Pricing
- PLT
- PM(NOC)
- PM(NOC) Damages
- PMPRB
- POSITA
- pride
- prior art
- Prior Disclosure
- prior use
- Priority
- Privilege
- procedure
- Product Specificity
- prohibited marks
- Promise Doctrine
- proprietor
- Prosecution
- Prosecution History
- protective order
- prothonotaries
- Provisional Patent
- public sale
- Public Servant
- Punitive Damages
- Recognition
- Records
- registration
- Reinstatement
- Reissue
- Remedies
- representation
- request for correction
- requisition
- responding
- review
- risk
- Royalties
- s. 27
- s. 45
- s. 53
- sale
- Scheduling
- Scholarship
- SCOTUS
- second person
- Secondary Infringement
- secondary meaning
- secret sale
- section 28
- Section 45
- section 50
- Section 52
- section 56
- section 7
- security
- Selection Patents
- Services
- settlement
- Site-Blocking Orders
- skilled person
- Software
- Software Copyright
- Software Patent
- Sound Prediction
- Specification
- sponsorship
- SRED
- Standard of Proof
- Standard of Review
- Standard-Essential Patents
- standing
- standing to appeal
- Start-up
- Startups
- Statute of Monopolies
- stay
- Strategy
- Sufficiency
- Summary Judgment
- superior court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- surname
- Technology
- Telecommunications
- time frame
- TPP
- Trade Secrets
- Trade-Mark
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Opposition
- Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- Trademarks Act
- treaty
- UK
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Use
- useful article
- USMCA
- USPTO
- Utility
- Validity
- Variant
- Varying records
- Velocity
- vexatious
- who's who legal
- Written Description
June 27, 2017
June 27, 2017
Case No. UNCT/14/2 - An ICSID Tribunal dismissed Eli Lilly’s claim against Canada, which was brought in relation to two Canadian patents owned by Eli Lilly that had been invalidated for failing to provide the utility they promised.
June 6, 2017
June 6, 2017
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 2, 2017
May 2, 2017
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.
April 25, 2017
April 25, 2017
2016 FC 593 - The FC awarded Janssen Canada and Janssen US almost $19 million in total damages for Teva's infringement of a Japanese entity's patent, for which Janssen US had never even exercised its licence in Canada.
March 14, 2017
March 14, 2017
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
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.