New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
As previously reported, in the final decision released under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), the Federal Court granted a prohibition order relating to Canadian Patent No....more
Update: On October 7, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Apotex’s leave to appeal (Apotex v Shire, Docket No. 39662). The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) recently dismissed an appeal by Apotex from a decision of the...more
UPDATE: UPDATE: On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Pfizer’s application for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39150) (see article here). Pfizer seeks leave in pregabalin section 8 case As previously...more
UPDATE: On November 3, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Amgen’s appeal. See our article here. On April 16, 2020, Justice Southcott of the Federal Court issued the first decision under the amended Patented...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court, in a pair of decisions, granted orders prohibiting Apotex and Teva from marketing their generic o-desmethyl-venlafaxine (ODV) succinate products (Pfizer’s PRISTIQ) until expiry of...more
In an action by Apotex for compensation from Sanofi and Schering under the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, U.K. Statute of Monopolies and the Trade-marks Act, the Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a motion judge’s...more
Teva succeeds in section 8 bortezomib action; infringement counterclaim dismissed - On July 18, 2018, Justice Locke of the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines...more
On July 13, 2018, the Federal Court dismissed Eli Lilly’s application for a prohibition order, finding that Apotex’s allegation of obviousness of Patent No. 2,432,644 (644 Patent) was justified: Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex...more
SCC Update. On October 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Apotex’s motion to amend the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2017 SCC 36 (reported here, relating to...more
The Circuit issued only one precedential patent case this week, reversing a determination of obviousness as to a Millennium Pharmaceutical patent covering its blockbuster cancer drug Velcade®, thus extending the life of...more
Federal Court of Appeal finds that Apotex did not fail to mitigate its damages in relation to Apo-Trazodone drug submission - On April 6, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Federal Court’s finding that...more
Federal Court of Appeal rules on non-infringing alternatives and apportionment as defences to an accounting of profits from patent infringement - On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a...more
Apotex’s Infringement of AstraZeneca’s Omeprazole Formulation Patent Upheld - As previously reported, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision released on January 12, 2017 (2017 FCA 9), has affirmed the...more
Federal Court of Appeal opines on the framework for analyzing obviousness-type double-patenting - On November 4, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal in Apotex Inc v Eli Lilly Canada Inc, 2016 FCA...more
Perhaps the most significant Supreme Court decision in the past quarter century for the working patent practitioner is Dickinson v. Zurko, which strictly speaking is less a patent case than an administrative law decision. ...more
WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more
Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - Addressing the issue of showing a reasonable expectation of success when making obviousness combinations in the context of broad genus claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more