In a decision released yesterday, the Federal Court of Appeal has allowed Apotex’s appeal and held that Pfizer’s 132 Patent relating to latanoprost “fails to meet the requirements for sound prediction.”
Continue reading FCA allows appeal on lack of sound prediction (Latanoprost)
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision of Justice Gauthier in the decision Phostech v. Valence 2011 FCA 237 (PDF) finding that the trial judge made no error in construing the claim to find the patent valid and infringed.
Continue reading FCA upholds patent infringement and validity in Phostech v. Valence
While we wait for the judgment from the Federal Court of Appeal in the Amazon.com proceeding on the patentability of business methods, I thought I would post a few remaining items from the case.
I had previously posted copies of the Appellant’s Factum and the Respondent’s Factum. Copies of the Intervener’s Factum and the Respondent’s Reply to the Intervener are now also available.
There are a few reports from the hearing including from Nora Sleeth at Osgoode Hall Law School and Chris Heer of Bennett Jones.
In decision released yesterday, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the application of s.73(1)(a) ‘good faith’ under the Patent Act and held that “Its operation is extinguished once the patent issues.” (PDF of decision) Dimock Stratton represented two of the respondents in the case and has a summary available.
The Federal Court has posted a “model” bifurcation order (DOC) for use in intellectual property matters.
In a decision published yesterday, Justice Crampton of the Federal Court denied Astrazeneca’s request for an interlocutory injunction against Apotex. The decision is Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2011 FC 505 (Esomeprazole) in T-1668-10 and follows a PM(NOC) proceeding in which Apotex’s allegations of invalidity against at least some of the patents were found justified (T-371-08). The decision has already been appealed and the appeal dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal (A-180-11).
Professor Norman Siebrasse of University of New Brunswick and author of the Sufficient Description blog, has an interesting discussion of the test for an interlocutory injunction in the context of this decision.
Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would be hearing the appeal in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. The Amazon.com hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal is scheduled for tomorrow in Toronto.
In a decision published today, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision striking the plaintiff’s further amended statement of claim on the basis that it did not provide sufficient details of the defendant’s activity that would constitute infringement. The Court upheld the view that the allegations were not on any knowledge or evidence of the plaintiff of the defendant’s activities and the plaintiff hoped to fill in the gaps in its knowledge through discovery. Continue reading Particulars needed for pleading patent infringement
The Federal Courts Rules Committee has posted a discussion paper on possible procedural changes to the Federal Courts Rules. The proposed changes relate to among other things, time limits for defences, books of authorities, amici curiae, and monetary limits for simplified procedure and prothonotaries. Comments are requested by the Rules Committee by June 24, 2011July 15, 2011.
Continue reading Discussion paper on changes to Federal Courts Rules
Yesterday, the Federal Court published its decisions in Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association v. Canada (Health) 2011 FC 465 relating to the standing of CGPA to challenge a decision of the Minister of Health listing fluticasone furoate under the data protection regulations. The court held that the CGPA does not have standing to challenge the decision.
Continue reading Federal Court decision in Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association