Federal Court of Appeal opines on the framework for analyzing obviousness-type double-patenting »

Supreme Court News »

Supreme Court hears and reserves decision on “promise” of utility »

Amgen’s leave to appeal FCA decision re mootness denied »

CETA Approved »

Patented Medicine Prices Review Board releases November NEWSletter »

Health Canada News »

Other Decisions »

Glaxo’s claim for breach of good faith by Apotex in contract performance found viable »

Bayer entitled to elect between damages and an accounting of profits »

New Court proceedings »

Federal Court of Appeal opines on the framework for analyzing obviousness-type double-patenting

by Shirley Liang Komosa »

On November 4, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal in Apotex Inc v Eli Lilly Canada Inc, 2016 FCA 267 and upheld the Federal Court’s Order of prohibition for tadalafil (Eli Lilly’s CIALIS) regarding Patent No. 2,226,784 (“784 patent”) (previously reported). In doing so, the Federal Court of Appeal chose not to depart from its recent decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v Eli Lilly Canada Inc, 2016 FCA 119 (reported here), holding that Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc, 2000 SCC 67 (“Whirlpool”) did not settle the question of the relevant date for obviousness-type double-patenting. The Court also found Apotex’s argument with respect to insufficiency to be without merit.

Read more »

Supreme Court of Canada News

Supreme Court hears and reserves decision on “promise” of utility. As previously reported, the Supreme Court of Canada heard AstraZeneca’s appeal on the utility of AstraZeneca’s Nexium patent on November 8, 2016 and reserved its decision.

Amgen’s leave to appeal FCA decision re mootness denied: As previously reported, Amgen sought leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Amgen’s appeal from a decision declining to grant a prohibition order regarding Apotex’s filgrastim product GRASTOFIL (a biosimilar of Amgen’s NEUPOGEN): Amgen v Apotex, 2016 FCA 196. The Federal Court of Appeal had held the appeal was moot. On October 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Amgen’s application for leave to appeal.

CETA Approved

As reported in our IP Update, CETA Receives Approval - What IP owners need to know, CETA was approved on October 30, 2016. See our article, Bill C-30 to implement CETA tabled in Canadian Parliament: implications for pharmaceuticals, for more information on implications for pharmaceuticals based on the text of Bill C-30 tabled on October 31, 2016: end to dual litigation, innovator right of appeal, patent-term extension (certificates of supplementary protection).

Patented Medicine Prices Review Board releases November NEWSletter

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) released its November 2016 NEWSletter. Highlights include an update on phase 2 of the consultation process regarding the need to reform its Compendium of Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, which allows stakeholders who provided comments on the PMPRB Discussion Paper an opportunity to make oral submissions; updates on the status of proceedings relating to Alexion’s SOLIRIS (eculizumab), Galderma’s DIFFERIN, DIFFERIN XP, TACTUPUMP and TACTUPUMP FORTE, and Baxalta’s ONCASPAR (pegaspargase); and release of the first issue of the National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System’s Market Intelligence Report research series titled Market Intelligence Report: Biologic response modifier agents, 2015.

Health Canada News

Revisions made to Post-NOC Changes: Quality Guidance document. On November 3, 2016, Health Canada announced the release of the revised guidance document entitled Post-Notice of Compliance (NOC) Changes – Quality Guidance, regarding the conditions for the categorization of any post authorization change and recommendations for supporting documentation. Originally published in September 2009, the Guidance document was revised most recently in February 2016 (previously reported). The current revisions are effective immediately, and relate to the addition to Appendix 1 the conditions and supporting data for changes 2a and 2b.

Other Decisions

Glaxo’s claim for breach of good faith by Apotex in contract performance found viable. The Ontario Superior Court dismissed Apotex’s motion to strike portions of the Glaxo plaintiffs’ (“Glaxo’s”) Statement of Claim, including allegations of standing and breach of a duty of good faith in contract performance: GlaxoSmithKline Inc v Apotex Inc, 2016 ONSC 6768. Glaxo alleges that Apotex breached a settlement agreement by selling several years’ worth of valacyclovir hydrochloride (Glaxo’s VALTREX) during an agreed-upon six-month withdrawal from the marketplace. The Court found that it was not plain and obvious that GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property (No. 2) Ltd. (“GIP2”) had no standing. Glaxo plead the material facts to establish that Glaxo Group Ltd. had entered into the settlement agreement as an agent for GIP2. The Court also found that it was far from plain and obvious that Glaxo did not have a viable claim for breach of good faith in contract performance. That doctrine is entering into a developmental stage given the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhasin v Hrynew. Where the scope of a legal duty has not been fully settled in the jurisprudence, an allegation that the duty has been breached should not be struck.

Bayer entitled to elect between damages and an accounting of profits. The Federal Court previously found that Apotex and Cobalt infringed Bayer’s valid patent for an oral contraceptive composition combining drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol (Bayer’s YAZ and YASMIN) (2016 FC 1013, as reported here). In that judgment, Justice Fothergill requested written submissions addressing whether Bayer should be entitled to elect between damages and an accounting of the defendants’ profits. On October 27, 2016, the Court held that Bayer is entitled to elect: Bayer Inc v Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company, 2016 FC 1192.

On behalf of both defendants, Apotex argued that it, not Bayer, should decide Bayer’s remedy. Specifically, Apotex argued that Bayer should not be entitled to damages, but only to an accounting of profits. Apotex relied on the fact that it had complied with the PMNOC Regulations, and successfully alleged non-infringement of Bayer’s patent in the PMNOC application. The Court disagreed, finding a patentee cannot be deprived of its statutory right to damages.

New Court proceedings

Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations


teriparatide (FORTEO)


Eli Lilly Canada Inc and Eli Lilly and Company, US


Teva Canada Limited and the Minister of Health

Date Commenced:

October 21, 2016

Court File No.:



Application for Order of prohibition until expiry of Patents Nos. 2,314,313 and 2,325,371. Teva alleges invalidity and non-infringement.

To check the status of Federal Court cases, please click here.

Follow @smartbiggar


Smart & Biggar honoured as the Canadian Patent Contentious Firm of the Year and Gunars Gaikis named Canadian Patent Litigation Attorney of the Year by LMG Life Sciences
Read more »

Smart & Biggar named Canada’s Intellectual Property Litigation Firm of the Year for two years in a row and ten leading IP litigators recognized in the area of intellectual property by Benchmark Canada
Read more »

Nancy Pei selected to be on Managing Intellectual Property’s IP Stars list of the Top 250 Women in IP for 2016
Read more »

Smart & Biggar honoured as one of only two Canadian firms selected as a ‘Band One’ firm in Canadian intellectual property law in the 2016 edition of Chambers Canada
Read more »

Smart & Biggar once again leads in Canadian IP law as the only firm chosen at the top of the rankings in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver in the 2016 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory
Read more »

Smart & Biggar lauded at the “top level of the Canadian market” in the 2016 edition of IAM Patent 1000 — The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners
Read more »

Smart & Biggar chosen for the third year in a row as the Best Canadian IP Firm at The International Legal Alliance Summit & Awards
Read more »

Smart & Biggar honoured by Managing Intellectual Property as both the "Canadian Specialty IP Firm of the Year" and the "Canadian Trademark Contentious Firm of the Year"
Read more »

David Schwartz named the 2016 Biotechnology Law "Lawyer of the Year" in Ottawa by Best Lawyers
Read more »

The future is bright: Smart & Biggar dominates Canadian IP in LMG Rising Stars rankings
Read more »

26 Smart & Biggar lawyers recognized in the 2016 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada
Read more »

For more information or to request a copy of any decision, pleading or legislation, please contact:

Nancy Pei (Editor)




Andrew Mandlsohn
Kevin Siu

Urszula Wojtyra
Shirley Liang Komosa

Paul Jorgensen
Brandon Heard

Abigail Smith

Gunars Gaikis
Nancy Pei

Steven Garland
Mark Biernacki

Sheldon Hamilton
Jeremy Want

Yoon Kang
Colin Ingram

Christopher Robinson
David Schwartz

Yoon Kang

Daphne Lainson

Thuy Nguyen

Nancy Pei

Daphne Lainson




The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and regulatory law of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. The contents of this newsletter are informational only and do not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.

Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh

Ottawa   /   Toronto   /   Montreal   /   Vancouver   /   Calgary

If you do not wish to receive future mailings of this kind (seminar invitations, greeting cards, notification of legal developments), please access the Manage Your Subscription link below to unsubscribe and to manage your settings.