PM(NOC)

October 5, 2016

“More or Less Self-evident” Remains the Standard in the Obvious-to-Try Test

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.
August 22, 2016

FC Bifurcates Infringement & Validity Issues from Section 8 PM(NOC) Proceeding in Hopes of Settlement

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

Law Remains Unsettled Regarding Appropriate Date for Assessing Obviousness-type Double Patenting

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 11, 2016

FC Dismisses Prohibition Application – Favours Respondent’s “Blinded Expert” Evidence

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

Strike Two: Second Prohibition Application Regarding Mylan’s Proposed Tadalafil Tablets Denied

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.
February 17, 2016

Data Protection Provisions Block Post-Filing NDS Amendments for Generic Drug

2015 FC 1205 - A quirk in the PM(NOC) rules was resolved that could make the entry of generics into the market even slower if the generic tries to make post-filing amendments to its application.
October 7, 2015

Relitigating Conceded Claims is an Abuse of PM(NOC) Proceedings

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.
May 20, 2015

PM(NOC) Amendments to Reverse Gilead and Viiv Decisions Regarding Product Specificity Requirement for Combination Drugs

The proposed amendments would dispose of the product specificity requirement that was interpreted by the Federal Court of Appeal in paragraphs 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the PM(NOC) Regulations.
February 25, 2015

Federal Court Upholds Gap between Claim Construction and PM(NOC) Product Specificity Requirement for Combination Drugs

Eli Lilly Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 152 - This decision clearly states 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.