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 »
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 »
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 »
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. –
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
The Federal Court of Appeal (Locke JA writing) has held that it is an abuse of process for second persons under the PMNOC Regulations to serve more than one Notice of Allegation (“NOA”) relating to the same patent and drug product. Janssen v. Apotex 2023 FCA 253 Facts: Janssen markets paliperidone palmitate suspension in prefilled
Multiple Notices of Allegation are Abusive Read More »
