New decisions were published in the cases of Purdue Pharma v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FCA 132 (Oxycodone), Apotex Inc. v. Allergan, Inc. 2011 FCA 134 (Gatifloxacin) and Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp. 2011 FC 467.

Purdue Pharma v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FCA 132 (Oxycodone) (A-288-10):

The Minister of Health (the Minister) determined that Canadian Patent No. 2,098,738
The statutory framework and legislative history underlying the Regulations is well-known and fully described in the decisions of this Court and need not be repeated here. See: Wyeth Canada v. ratiopharm inc., 2007 FCA 264, [2008] 1 F.C.R. 447; Abbott Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FCA 354, [2009] 3 F.C.R. 547 (Abbott Meridia); and G.D. Searle & Co. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2009 FCA 35, 71 C.P.R. (4th) 389 (G.D. Searle).

Apotex Inc. v. Allergan, Inc. 2011 FCA 134 (Gatifloxacin) (A-439-10):

The appellants (together Apotex) appeal from an interlocutory order of a judge of the Federal Court which dismissed a motion brought by Apotex for an order striking out the statement of claim filed by the respondents to this appeal. On this appeal, Apotex submits that the Judge of the Federal Court erred when he declined to strike out the pleading as disclosing no cause of action, because the statement of claim improperly consisted of bald or speculative pleas of patent infringement and because the plea regarding its intended future actions falls short of the required standard when pleading a quia timet action.

Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp. 2011 FC 467 (T-436-05):

The trial in this matter concluded on February 11, 2011. The matter is under reserve and no reasons or judgment have been issued. The Defendants now seek to reopen the trial.
The subject of a motion to reopen the trial to admit new evidence first arose in a letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel to the Court which commenced: