This was an appeal from an order dismissing part of an
impeachment action. Justice Nadon writing for the Court of Appeal
agreed with Apotex that Warner-Lambert's motion to dismiss part
of an impeachment action commenced by Apotex was decided in error
by the Federal Court judge. Consequently, the appeal was allowed,
the judgement of the Federal Court was set aside and the motion for
the dismissal of part of the action was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that Apotex should be allowed to
continue with its impeachment action on two patents (the '330
and '615 patents) even though one of them expired in 2011 (the
'615 patent) because, in light of the Statute of Monopolies and
Gilbert Surgical Supply Co. Ltd v. Horner (1960) 34 CPR 17 (Ont.
C.A.) a declaration of invalidity of the '615 patent is a
necessary condition to proceedings Apotex intends to commence in
Ontario under the Statute of Monopolies. In Gilbert Surgical
Supply, the Court of Appeal of Ontario concluded that although
being novel, an action where the invalidity of a patent was the
basis upon which the action had been commenced under the Statute of
Monopolies, could not be said to be bereft of success.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
A recent Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decision allowed a court-appointed receiver to sell and transfer intellectual property rights free and clear of encumbrances, finding that a license to use improvements of an invention was a contractual interest and not a property interest.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).