On August 8, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) held that Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”), a biosimilar manufacturer, was not required to address Bayer Inc.’s (“Bayer”) newly issued patent (the “315 Patent”) for EYLEA (aflibercept) under the PM(NOC) Regulations because it had not been added to the Patent Register when Amgen’s New Drug Submission […]
On September 27, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) affirmed that four patents owned by AngelCare Canada (“AngelCare”) are valid and were infringed by the manufacture and sale of diaper pail cassettes by Munchkin Baby Canada Inc. (“Munchkin Canada”) and its US parent, Munchkin, Inc. (“Munchkin USA”). The decision raises important issues relating to
On September 13, 2024, the Federal Court (per Manson J.) held that four patents owned by ProSlide Technology Inc. (“ProSlide”) were invalid, and that three of those patents were not infringed by the manufacture of waterslide component parts in Canada by WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd. (“WhiteWater”). The case turned largely on the facts but raised
On May 6, 2024, Canada’s Standing Committee on Health (“HESA”) issued a report containing “ten recommendations on how the Government of Canada can enable the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) to more effectively carry out its mandate and implement its reforms” (“Report”). HESA called on the Government of Canada to “table a comprehensive response
Government of Canada Responds to Parliamentary Committee Report on PMPRB Reform Read More »
On August 6, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Gleason JA; Stratas and Monaghan JJA, concurring) held that two patents owned by Rovi Guides [Rovi] were invalid. Nonetheless, in obiter, the FCA provided clarification on the circumstances in which an accounting of profits and a permanent injunction are available as remedies for patent
On August 6, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Gleason JA; Stratas and Monaghan JJA, concurring) held that two patents owned by Rovi Guides [Rovi] were invalid for obviousness. Nonetheless, in obiter, the FCA held that the trial judge erred in several aspects of his remedial analysis, including the correct approach for deciding
On August 19, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke JA; Woods and Laskin JJ.A., concurring) held that a patent claiming a specific herbicide (flucarbazone sodium) for the selective control of wild oats was not anticipated by two prior patents disclosing genera of herbicides for a variety of uses. Agracity Crop v. Upl Na
FCA holds that Anticipation by Publication is a Difficult Defence to Establish Read More »
Parliamentary Committee Issues Report on PMPRB Reform. Calls for “Comprehensive Response” by the Government On May 6, 2024, Canada’s Standing Committee on Health (“HESA”) issued a report containing “ten recommendations on how the Government of Canada can enable the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (“PMPRB”) to more effectively carry out its mandate and implement its
The Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) has held that the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) acted reasonably in denying a request for reinstatement of a patent that lapsed due to non-payment of an annual maintenance fee. This decision underscores the importance of having multiple lines of communication between a patent agent and a client – and
The “Due Care” Standard for Patent Reinstatement in Canada: A Very High Bar Read More »
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
