Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

IP Decisions

Snowplow Patents are Snowed Under due to Federal Court Findings of Obviousness

IP Decisions /

The Federal Court (per St-Louis J.) held that the asserted claims of three patents owned by Nordik Blades (collectively, the “Nordik Patents”) are invalid on the basis of obviousness. However, the Court found that the asserted claims are not overbroad and the Nordik Patents are not void under section 53 of the Patent Act. The […]

Snowplow Patents are Snowed Under due to Federal Court Findings of Obviousness Read More »

Federal Court Finds Takeda’s Patent Not infringed and Invalid for Inutility and Insufficiency

IP Decisions /

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

Federal Court Finds Takeda’s Patent Not infringed and Invalid for Inutility and Insufficiency Read More »

Samsung and Biogen Enjoined From Using BYOOVIZ Trademark for their Biosimilar in Canada

IP Decisions /

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 »

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs

IP Decisions /

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. –

Generic Manufacturers Induce Patent Infringement by Recommending Use of a Patented Dosing Regimen in their Product Monographs Read More »

Federal Court Upholds Use of “Clinical Similarities” to Assess PMPRB Reporting Jurisdiction

IP Decisions /

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

Federal Court Upholds Use of “Clinical Similarities” to Assess PMPRB Reporting Jurisdiction Read More »

Federal Court Determines the Inventive Concept of an Improved Drug Formulation

IP Decisions /

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 »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part III

IP Decisions /

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 »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part II

IP Decisions /

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 »

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part I

IP Decisions /

Co-written with Dino Clarizio In a complex patent infringement action involving five NCS patents and one Kobold patent relating to tools and sleeves used in oil well drilling, the Federal Court (per McVeigh J.) held that NCS’s patents were invalid and not infringed, and that Kobold’s patent was valid and infringed by NCS. As a

Three Interesting Issues Raised in the NCS/Kobold Patent Action – Part I Read More »