Markwell Clarizio LLP

canada

Federal Court Makes Rare Holding that Patent Claims are Invalid for Ambiguity

Co-authored by Emily Papsin The Federal Court recently held (per McHaffie J.) that the impugned claims of two related patents for an additive manufacturing process (3D printing) were invalid and not infringed because an essential element (“depletion layer”) was ambiguous. Tekna Plasma Systems Inc. v. AP&C Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc., 2024 FC 871 Background […]

Federal Court Makes Rare Holding that Patent Claims are Invalid for Ambiguity Read More »

Markwell Clarizio LLP is a Contributor to the Chambers Life Sciences 2024 Global Practice Guide

Chambers and Partners has recently published its 2024 Life Sciences Global Practice Guide. Markwell Clarizio LLP is very pleased to have been invited to be the exclusive author of the Canadian sections of this comprehensive practice guide which is considered the “definitive global law guide offering comparative analysis from top ranked lawyers”. In the Canadian

Markwell Clarizio LLP is a Contributor to the Chambers Life Sciences 2024 Global Practice Guide Read More »

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

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

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 »

Litigating Patents in Canada Compared to the U.S.A.

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 »

Federal Court Determines the Inventive Concept of an Improved Drug Formulation

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 »

Announcement of a new Canadian Drug Agency by the Government of Canada

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 »

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

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

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

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 »