Articles

CBA Members

Intellectual
Property

CBA Intellectual Property Section

Articles are published by the Intellectual Property Section. Members interested in posting articles are encouraged to send them to the Section by email: CBAI_P@cba.org.

Today
Today

Case summary: Federal Court did not err in relying on knowledge of the proceeding

  • David Chapmen

Hospira Healthcare Corporation and the other appellants (“Hospira”) appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal from two decisions of a Federal Court judge. Both decisions refused to allow Hospira to amend its Statement of Issues in the underlying bifurcated patent infringement and validity action. The first motion was dismissed by a prothonotary and then by the Federal Court judge on appeal, and the second motion attempted to assert the same claim in greater detail.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Invalidity allegations against two patents justified

  • Kiernan A. Murphy

On March 21, 2017, the Federal Court dismissed the applicants’ prohibition application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations in connection with Apotex’s proposed generic dasatinib product. The court found Apotex’s invalidity allegations regarding Canadian Patent Nos. 2,366,932 and 2,519,898 to be justified.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Procedural matters relating to an application for judicial review

  • Cheryl Cheung

This Order and Reasons dealt with a motion that was brought by Bayer in the context of a judicial review, which circumstances may be summarized as follows: On August 22, 2023, Bayer made a submission to the Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison (the “OPML”) to list Canadian Patent No. 2,970,315 (the “315 Patent”) on the Patent Register in respect of the product EYLEA®, but the eligibility decision was not made until August 30, 2023;

Case summary: No order for production of samples where they do not exist

  • Cheryl Cheung

This Order and Reasons dealt with a motion brought by the plaintiffs (Janssen Inc. and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, collectively, “Janssen”) for an order requiring the defendant (JAMP Pharma Corporation) to produce certain samples. The motion was brought in the context of an action brought by Janssen under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations involving the medicinal ingredient canagliflozin.