Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Court | Federal Court (Canada) |
| Date | 07 February 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 FC 106 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
7 practice notes
-
Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation
...Construction A. Legal Principles [58] I recently summarized the principles of claims construction in Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106 at paragraphs 69-74 [Takeda]. These principles, which are equally applicable here, are repeated as follows. [59] The first task for the Court in a......
-
Alexion Pharma v. Amgen Canada
...the invention. [45] It is the person, or team of individuals, that would work the patent in a real sense: Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106 [Takeda] at para 76; Alcon Canada Inc v Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company, 2014 FC 462 at para 37, aff’d 2015 FCA 191, 2015 FCA [46] Where the P......
-
Adeia Guides Inc. v. Videotron Ltd., 2025 FC 1725
...based on the words used in the claims, interpreted in the context of the entire patent (Whirlpool at paras 43 and 49(c); Takeda v Apotex, 2024 FC 106 [Takeda] at paras [25] Patents must be interpreted in a manner that is fair to both the patentee and the public (Seedlings Life Science Ventu......
-
Louis Dreyfus Company Canada ULC v. Canada National Railway Company
...contradictory evidence (citing Browne v Dunn, (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), 1893 CanLII 65 (FOREP); see also Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106 at para 252). LDC argued that where this occurred, CN’s assertions should be given no [114] Specifically, LDC objected that CN provided alternat......
Get Started for Free
4 cases
-
Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation
...Construction A. Legal Principles [58] I recently summarized the principles of claims construction in Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106 at paragraphs 69-74 [Takeda]. These principles, which are equally applicable here, are repeated as follows. [59] The first task for the Court in a......
-
Alexion Pharma v. Amgen Canada
...the invention. [45] It is the person, or team of individuals, that would work the patent in a real sense: Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106 [Takeda] at para 76; Alcon Canada Inc v Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company, 2014 FC 462 at para 37, aff’d 2015 FCA 191, 2015 FCA [46] Where the P......
-
Adeia Guides Inc. v. Videotron Ltd., 2025 FC 1725
...based on the words used in the claims, interpreted in the context of the entire patent (Whirlpool at paras 43 and 49(c); Takeda v Apotex, 2024 FC 106 [Takeda] at paras [25] Patents must be interpreted in a manner that is fair to both the patentee and the public (Seedlings Life Science Ventu......
-
Louis Dreyfus Company Canada ULC v. Canada National Railway Company
...contradictory evidence (citing Browne v Dunn, (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), 1893 CanLII 65 (FOREP); see also Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106 at para 252). LDC argued that where this occurred, CN’s assertions should be given no [114] Specifically, LDC objected that CN provided alternat......
3 firm's commentaries
-
DEXILANT Formulation Patent Invalid And Not Infringed By Apotex
...and failure to disclose the factual basis and line of reasoning for sound prediction of utility: Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106. Background DEXILANT is a "pulsatile release formulation ... that includes two types of delayed-release beads containing dexlansoprazole", and release......
-
Dexlansoprazole Formulation Patent Invalid And Not Infringed By Apotex
...and failure to disclose the factual basis and line of reasoning for sound prediction of utility: Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106. Background DEXILANT is a "pulsatile release formulation ... that includes two types of delayed-release beads containing dexlansoprazole", and release......
-
Avoiding The Hindsight Trap In The Context Of A Patent Obviousness Analysis
...J.) 4. Molo Design Ltd v Chanel Canada ULC, 2024 FC 1260 at para 300 (McHaffie J.) 5. See most recently Takeda Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2024 FC 106 at para 198 (Furlanetto 6. Astrazeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 322 at para 231 (Barnes J.) see also Swist v Meg Energy Corp, 2021 FC 1......