Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Court | Federal Court (Canada) |
| Citation | 2020 FC 814 |
| Date | 10 September 2020 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
11 practice notes
-
Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., 2022 FC 507
...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, 2020 FC 816
...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., 2022 FC 715
...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 ......
-
CANMAR FOODS LTD. v. TA FOODS LTD., 2021 FCA 7
...for which prosecution communications can be introduced. In both the decision under appeal and Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814 [Eli Lilly], the Federal Court insisted on the limited purpose of introducing prosecution communications, that is the rebuttal of a representation ......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
-
Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., 2022 FC 507
...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, 2020 FC 816
...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., 2022 FC 715
...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 ......
-
CANMAR FOODS LTD. v. TA FOODS LTD., 2021 FCA 7
...for which prosecution communications can be introduced. In both the decision under appeal and Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814 [Eli Lilly], the Federal Court insisted on the limited purpose of introducing prosecution communications, that is the rebuttal of a representation ......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
-
IP Litigation 2020 Year In Review
...40. Seedlings Life Science Ventures, LLC v. Pfizer Canada ULC, 2020 FC 1 (Justice Grammond). 41. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814 (Justice 42. Western Oilfield Equipment Rentals Ltd. v. M-I LLC, 2019 FC 1606 (Justice O'Reilly). 43. Patent Act, RSC 1985, c. P-4. 44. Western ......
-
Inconsistency Remains The Key To Unlocking The File History. The Federal Court Of Appeal Cautions Against An Over Broad Interpretation Of Section 53.1 In Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc.
...of the Federal Court: Canmar Foods Ltd. v. TA Foods Ltd., 2019 FC 1233, aff'd 2021 FCA 7 (Canmar); Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814. This Court noted this apparent inconsistency also in its appeal decision in Canmar (Canmar FCA) at para. 66. Subsection 53.1(1) is a detailed......
-
Inconsistency Remains The Key To Unlocking The File History. The Federal Court Of Appeal Cautions Against An Over Broad Interpretation Of Section 53.1 In Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc.
...of the Federal Court: Canmar Foods Ltd. v. TA Foods Ltd., 2019 FC 1233, aff'd 2021 FCA 7 (Canmar); Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2020 FC 814. This Court noted this apparent inconsistency also in its appeal decision in Canmar (Canmar FCA) at para. 66. Subsection 53.1(1) is a detailed......
-
Promise Me No Promises? The Five-year Anniversary Of The Supreme Court's AstraZeneca Decision
...para 179. 37. Laboratories Servier at paras 219, 240-241. 38. Aux Sable at paras 56-69. 39. Aux Sable at paras 74. 40. Eli Lilly v Apotex, 2020 FC 814. 41. Janssen v Sandoz, 2022 FC 715 at para 42. Seedlings v Pfizer, 2021 FCA 154. Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com The content of ......
Request a trial to view additional results