ARTICLE
5 February 2019

Apotex Seeks Leave To Appeal Ramipril Pleadings Amendment Decision

SB
Smart & Biggar

Contributor

Smart & Biggar uncovers and maximizes intellectual property and technology assets for our clients. Today’s fast-paced innovation economy demands a higher level of expertise and attention to detail when it comes to IP strategy and protection. With over 125 lawyers, patent agents and trademark agents collaborating across five Canadian offices, Smart & Biggar is trusted by the world’s leading innovators to find value in their IP rights. As market leaders in IP, Smart & Biggar’s team is on the pulse when it comes to the latest developments and the wider industry changes that impact our clients. To stay informed, visit smartbiggar.ca/insights, including access to our RxIP Update (smartbiggar.ca/insights/rx-ip-updates), a monthly digest of the latest decisions and law surrounding the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries.
As previously reported, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) granted Sanofi and Schering leave to amend their defences to plead the Supreme Court of Canada's decision ...
Canada Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

As previously reported, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) granted Sanofi and Schering leave to amend their defences to plead the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v Apotex Inc., 2017 SCC 36 ("AstraZeneca"). In the underlying action, Apotex relies on Sanofi-Aventis Canada v Apotex Inc., 2009 FC 676 ("invalidity decision") as a central element of its novel claims under the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, U.K. Statute of Monopolies and Trade-Marks Act. The invalidity decision found certain claims of Canadian Patent No. 1,341,206 invalid on the basis of the "promise doctrine", which was subsequently rejected as "unsound" in AstraZeneca. The ONCA concluded that depriving Sanofi and Schering of the opportunity to argue that the invalidity decision is suspect would be "fundamentally unfair". On January 7, 2019, Apotex applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (docket No. 38471).

The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More