The Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) held that Takeda’s 916 Patent covering aspects of its DEXILANT® capsules is not infringed by Apotex’s proposed generic dexlansoprazole capsules and, in any event, is invalid for inutility (lack of sound prediction) and insufficiency. Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) The Court’s infringement and validity […]
The Federal Court (per Pallotta J.) held that Biogen’s and Samsung’s use of the mark BYOOVIZ in association with an ophthalmologic drug infringes Novartis’s trademark registration for BEOVU, and granted a permanent injunction preventing further use of the mark. Novartis v Biogen 2024 FC 52 Novartis is the owner in Canada of a trademark registration
Samsung and Biogen Enjoined From Using BYOOVIZ Trademark for their Biosimilar in Canada Read More »
In Apotex v Janssen (2024 FCA 9) and Pharmascience v Janssen (2024 FCA 10), the Federal Court of Appeal held that Apotex and Pharmascience would induce patent infringement by recommending that their respective generic products be sold and used according to the dosing regimen claimed in Janssen’s 335 Patent. Apotex Inc. v. Janssen Inc. –
In Galderma’s long-running dispute with the PMPRB, the Federal Court (per Fothergill J.) recently upheld the PMPRB’s decision that Galderma’s patent claiming the use of a 0.3% adapalene formulation “pertained” to its DIFFERIN (0.1% adapalene) product. Galderma Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) This is the most recent chapter in a
The Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing) has held that it is an abuse of process for second persons under the PMNOC Regulations to serve more than one Notice of Allegation (“NOA”) relating to the same patent and drug product. Janssen v. Apotex 2023 FCA 253 Facts: Janssen markets paliperidone palmitate suspension in prefilled
Multiple Notices of Allegation are Abusive Read More »
Some commentators have said the Inter Partes Review process and various U.S. Supreme Court decisions have recently made enforcement of patent rights in the United States more challenging. As a result, some patentees have looked abroad to places like Europe (especially Germany) to enforce their patent rights. But what about Canada? Why should an American
Litigating Patents in Canada Compared to the U.S.A. Read More »
In this Federal Court decision (per Pentney J.), the plaintiffs Allergan and AbbVie (“Allergan”) were successful in upholding the validity of their 691 Patent. The defendant (“Juno”) conceded that its proposed generic drug product would infringe the 691 Patent. The main issues before the Court were obviousness and sufficiency. Allergan v Juno, 2023 FC 1686
Federal Court Determines the Inventive Concept of an Improved Drug Formulation Read More »
On December 18, 2023, the Government of Canada announced the creation of the Canadian Drug Agency (“CDA”) built from CADTH in partnership with provinces and territories. The implementation of CDA is supported by an investment of $89.5 million over 5 years. The creation of the CDA has been in the works for many years.
Announcement of a new Canadian Drug Agency by the Government of Canada Read More »
Co-written with Dino Clarizio This is the third of a series of three posts discussing some of the issues addressed by the trial judge (McVeigh J.) in NCS v Kobold, 2023 FC 1486. The three issues we discuss are those that arise less frequently in patent cases. They are: Topic 1: Priority Date (Post #1)Topic
Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part III Read More »
Co-written with Dino Clarizio This is the second of a series of three posts discussing some of the issues addressed by the trial judge (McVeigh J.) in NCS v Kobold, 2023 FC 1486. The three issues we discuss are those that arise less frequently in patent cases. They are: Topic 1: Priority Dates (Post #1)Topic
Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part II Read More »
