Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

IP Decisions

Federal Court of Appeal Confirms That Cialis Patent is Invalid

IP Decisions /

The Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke JA.) affirmed a trial decision in which claims in Lilly’s patent covering physiologically acceptable salts of tadalafil were found to be invalid for overbreadth and insufficiency. The principal issue on appeal was the proper construction of the claim term “physiologically acceptable”, though the Court’s obiter statements regarding the […]

Federal Court of Appeal Confirms That Cialis Patent is Invalid Read More »

Federal Court Finds Flaws in Online Survey Evidence and Reminds About Descriptive Certification Marks

IP Decisions /

The Federal Court (Tsimberis J.) dismissed an appeal by Promotion in Motion, Inc. (“PIM”) from a Trademark Opposition Board (“Board”) decision refusing PIM’s applications to register its SWISSKISS mark and SWISSKISS & Design mark in association with “chocolate of Swiss origin”. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionary LLC (“Hershey”) successfully opposed PIM’s applications based on Hershey’s registered

Federal Court Finds Flaws in Online Survey Evidence and Reminds About Descriptive Certification Marks Read More »

Federal Court Determines Admissibility of Testimony from Fact Witnesses who Authored Prior Art

IP Decisions /

In Medexus Pharmaceuticals v Accord Healthcare (2024 FC 424), Justice Pallotta dismissed the plaintiffs’ (“Medexus”) patent infringement action after finding that the patent at issue (“662 Patent”) was invalid for obviousness. The 662 Patent related to concentrations of subcutaneously injected methotrexate solutions used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis. The decision addresses an interesting

Federal Court Determines Admissibility of Testimony from Fact Witnesses who Authored Prior Art Read More »

The “Due Care” Standard for Patent Reinstatement in Canada: A Very High Bar

IP Decisions /

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 »

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How”

IP Decisions /

In Pharmascience v Janssen, the Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing for the Court) held that the claims in Janssen’s patent to a dosing regimen are not prohibited as a method of medical treatment. Pharmascience v Janssen, 2024 FCA 23   The Prohibition Against Patenting Methods of Medical Treatment The patentability of methods of

Claims to Dosing Regimens May Not Be Prohibited Methods of Medical Treatment: A Question of “Whether” and “How” Read More »

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 »