Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.





Login
Twitter LinkedIn




Login
  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
Forward Share Print
Smart & Biggar

Supreme Court of Canada denies Apotex leave to appeal in two cases

Newsletters

10 July 2019

Healthcare & Life Sciences Canada

Court denies Apotex leave to appeal ramipril pleadings amendment decision
Court denies Apotex leave to appeal cefaclor damages decision


The Supreme Court of Canada has denied Apotex leave to appeal in two recent cases regarding ramipril and cefaclor.

Court denies Apotex leave to appeal ramipril pleadings amendment decision

As previously reported, Apotex sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal(1) permitting Sanofi and Schering to amend their defences to claims under the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, the UK Statute of Monopolies and the Trademarks Act (for further details please see "Apotex seeks leave to appeal ramipril pleadings amendment decision"). Apotex's claims relied on Sanofi-Aventis Canada v Apotex Inc(2) (the 'invalidity decision'), which found certain claims of Canadian Patent 1,341,206 invalid on the basis of the promise doctrine. The Ontario Court of Appeal permitted Sanofi and Schering to plead that AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc(3) – which rejected the promise doctrine as "unsound" – rendered the invalidity decision suspect. On 16 May 2019 the Supreme Court denied Apotex's application for leave to appeal.(4)

Court denies Apotex leave to appeal cefaclor damages decision

As previously reported, Apotex sought leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal(5) relating to damages awarded to Eli Lilly in respect of Apotex's infringement of process patents relating to cefaclor (for further details please see "Apotex seeks leave from Supreme Court of Canada in cefaclor damages action"). The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that a non-infringing alternative defence was not available to Apotex. On 23 May 2019 the Supreme Court denied Apotex's application for leave to appeal.(6)

For further information on this topic please contact Brandon Heard at Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh by telephone (+1 416 593 5514) or email (brheard@smart-biggar.ca). The Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh website can be accessed at www.smart-biggar.ca.

Endnotes

(1) 2018 ONCA 890.

(2) 2009 FC 676.

(3) 2017 SCC 36.

(4) Case 38471.

(5) 2018 FCA 217.

(6) Case 38485.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

Forward Share Print

Author

Brandon Heard

Brandon Heard

Register now for your free newsletter

View recent newsletter

More from this firm

  • Innovators challenge final PMPRB Guidelines in new Federal Court application
  • Few significant changes made in final PMPRB guidelines
  • Federal Court orders minister of health to issue NOC to Fresenius Kabi for biosimilar
  • CADTH harmonises drug reimbursement review process
  • Health Canada issues interim order respecting drug shortages relating to COVID-19

More articles

  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • My account
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Terms
  • Cookie policy
Online Media Partners
Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) International Bar Association (IBA) European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) American Bar Association Section of International Law (ABA)

© 1997-2021 Law Business Research

You need to be logged in to make a comment. Log in here.
Many thanks. Your comment has been sent.

Your details



Your comment or question *