The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently dismissed Apotex's motion to plead promise-based invalidity grounds in a Section 8 lansoprazole action. The motion had arisen in the context of a Section 8 action in which Apotex claimed damages for delay in the issuance of its notice of compliance for its generic lansoprazole product (Takeda's Prevacid) due to prohibition applications commenced by Abbott and Takeda.
The Federal Court of Canada has refused Pfizer's motion to dismiss an action under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) (PMNOC) Regulations between Amgen and Pfizer. Pfizer sought to dismiss the action, asserting that it was redundant, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process. Pfizer based its argument on a decision under the old PMNOC Regulations in which the court had found that Apotex's allegation of invalidity was justified.
The minister of health recently made an order permitting the immediate import and sale of epinephrine auto-injectors for use in emergency treatment of life-threatening allergic reactions to address the shortage of EpiPen products. This is the first time that an interim order under Section 30.1(2)(a) of the Food and Drugs Act has been used to address the shortage of an approved product.
The Federal Court recently dismissed Valeant's application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations regarding Ranbaxy's bupropion extended-release tablets. The court found that the amount of permeation enhancer in the Ranbaxy formulation was outside the scope of the range claimed. As such, Ranbaxy's allegation of non-infringement was found to be justified.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently denied Sobeys' application for leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in a dispute regarding the Alberta College of Pharmacists' policy prohibiting pharmacists and pharmacies from offering loyalty rewards programmes or inducements to patients. This decision follows the court's 2016 refusal to grant Sobeys leave to appeal a decision allowing the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia to prohibit "customer incentive programmes".
After years of uncertainty, a date has been set for the implementation of Canada's new trademark law, which will come into force on 17 June 2019. The law will bring about significant changes, including the simplification of trademark applications, the elimination of the government registration fee for new applications and the introduction of fees per class.
Section 22 of the Trademarks Act, depreciation of a registered trademark's goodwill, is a potentially powerful yet generally underused weapon for dealing with damaging comparative advertising campaigns. Dilution-type claims to prevent comparative ads displaying a registered trademark are particularly complex as they require that the advertising actually 'use' the registered mark within the meaning of the Trademarks Act.
Numerous and substantial amendments were recently made to the Industrial Design Act and the Industrial Design Rules. The amendments will modernise Canada's industrial design law and harmonise it with other jurisdictions. Among other changes, applicants may now file a divisional application for any design that is originally disclosed – not merely claimed – in a parent application as filed and choose whether to provide a description of the design or statement of limitation.
The government recently introduced Bill C-86. The changes introduced by the bill are in addition to the many amendments to the Trademarks Act and Patent Act yet to be brought into force. These changes represent continuing efforts by the government to update and modernise Canada's IP legislation and ensure that it is compliant with Canada's international obligations.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently dismissed Apotex's motion to plead promise-based invalidity grounds in a Section 8 lansoprazole action. Apotex claimed damages for delay in the issuance of its notice of compliance for its generic lansoprazole product due to prohibition applications commenced by Abbott and Takeda. Abbott and Takeda had pleaded patent infringement as a defence and brought a counterclaim for patent infringement. Apotex in turn challenged the validity of Takeda's patents.