The Federal Court (O’Reilly J.) dismissed an application for judicial review brought by Bayer Inc. (“Bayer”). The Court found that the Minister of Health (the “Minister”) was not unreasonable in not determining the Bayer patent’s eligibility for listing on the patent register the same day it was received for consideration. Bayer Inc. v. Amgen Canada […]
Court holds that Health Canada patent listing delay is reasonable Read More »
On August 8, 2024, the Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) held that a patent directed to nintedanib for use in the prevention or treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”) was valid and infringed, while a patent directed to formulations of nintedanib was not infringed. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. et al v. Jamp Pharma Corporation, 2024
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 »
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 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
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 »
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 »
