Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Citation2020 FC 814
Date10 September 2020

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
12 practice notes
  • Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 7, 2022
    ...Inc. v Bauer Hockey Corp., 2011 FCA 83 at para 53). Justice St-Louis, writing at paragraph 84 of Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814, notes that “the usual rule is that what is not claimed is considered disclaimed”, relying on Whirlpool at paragraph 42 and Monsanto Canada Inc v......
  • Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 10, 2020
    ...Inc. in regards to Canadian Patent No. 2,492,540 Patent [the 540 Patent] are exposed in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. and als. v Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814. In the 540 Patent additional reasons, I repeat certain elements and sections of these reasons in order to allow their reading on a stand-alone b......
  • Janssen Inc. v. Sandoz Canada Inc.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 31, 2022
    ...of the prior art teachings and would have accepted these teachings as a good basis for further action: Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2020 FC 814 at para 130. Hoeper et al (2004) reported on the long-term use of bosentan and sildenafil, stating “combining bosentan and sildenaf‌il might ......
  • Agi Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 18, 2024
    ...2004 FC 88 [Halford (FC)] at paras 91–94, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2006 FCA 275 [Halford (FCA)]; Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2020 FC 814 [Lilly Tadalafil] at paras 111–113; Apotex Inc v Lundbeck Canada Inc, 2010 FCA 320 [Apotex Escitalopram] at paras 109–110. The limitations o......
  • Get Started for Free
6 cases
  • Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 7, 2022
    ...Inc. v Bauer Hockey Corp., 2011 FCA 83 at para 53). Justice St-Louis, writing at paragraph 84 of Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814, notes that “the usual rule is that what is not claimed is considered disclaimed”, relying on Whirlpool at paragraph 42 and Monsanto Canada Inc v......
  • Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 10, 2020
    ...Inc. in regards to Canadian Patent No. 2,492,540 Patent [the 540 Patent] are exposed in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. and als. v Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814. In the 540 Patent additional reasons, I repeat certain elements and sections of these reasons in order to allow their reading on a stand-alone b......
  • Janssen Inc. v. Sandoz Canada Inc.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 31, 2022
    ...of the prior art teachings and would have accepted these teachings as a good basis for further action: Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2020 FC 814 at para 130. Hoeper et al (2004) reported on the long-term use of bosentan and sildenafil, stating “combining bosentan and sildenaf‌il might ......
  • Agi Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 18, 2024
    ...2004 FC 88 [Halford (FC)] at paras 91–94, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2006 FCA 275 [Halford (FCA)]; Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2020 FC 814 [Lilly Tadalafil] at paras 111–113; Apotex Inc v Lundbeck Canada Inc, 2010 FCA 320 [Apotex Escitalopram] at paras 109–110. The limitations o......
  • Get Started for Free
6 firm's commentaries