Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court held Dr. Keith Reutter’s affidavit inadmissible on a certification application, finding he lacked relevant expertise, independence, and reliable survey methodology.
The Federal Court dismissed Janssen’s Rule 105 motion to hear common evidence together in three s. 8 damages actions, finding limited commonality and significant prejudice.
Federal Court rules Merck’s action partially succeeds: the 363 patent claims are valid but limited to the 13 listed serotypes, while the formulation patents are largely invalid.
The Federal Court held Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 invalid for obviousness/obvious to try, ordered it removed from the Patent Register, and dismissed the action with costs.
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court: the Minister's formulation of the question to the reconsideration panel was reasonable and did not fetter her discretion; the scope of a reconsideration is limited to resolving a scientific question within the regulatory framework (including C.08.002.1(2)); the appellate court declined to decide the legitimate expectation/cancellation issue because it was not properly before the court; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court Judge correctly applied the Sanofi framework and related jurisprudence, found on the evidentiary record that Form I ODV succinate was not obvious or obvious-to-try because its existence and properties were unpredictable and the required experimentation amounted to a research program; the appeal is dismissed and his factual findings attract deference under the palpable and overriding error standard.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed and the trial judge’s principal factual findings are upheld: Teva did not abandon its s.8 claim; issue estoppel bars Lilly from using AstraZeneca to relitigate validity for damages after final determinations; the trial judge did not err in declining to shorten the liability period or find an abuse of process; Teva established it could and would have entered the market March 3, 2006 and the 29.4% trade-spend finding stands. However, the trial judge erred as a matter of law in excluding pipefill (manufacturer-to-distributor sales within the liability period) and in faili…
Source excerpt
The Federal Court fixed the s. 8 damages framework in Teva’s favour, finding a liability period from March 3, 2006 to June 5, 2007 and rejecting pipefill as recoverable loss.
The Federal Court held Canadian Patent No. 2,490,191 invalid for lack of utility and insufficient disclosure, and dismissed Idenix’s counterclaim.
The Federal Court dismissed Janssen’s NOC application, holding that bortezomib was obvious in light of prior art genus disclosures and lacked unexpected advantages.
Explore more
