Smart & Biggar

 

 
Twitter
LinkedIn
Forward
 
 
 

October 2018

 
 

IN THIS ISSUE:

Apotex not permitted to plead promise-based invalidity grounds in Ontario section 8 lansoprazole action

 

Amgen not precluded from asserting patent under current PMNOC Regulations even though unsuccessful under old PMNOC Regulations

 

New court proceedings

 
 

Apotex not permitted to plead promise-based invalidity grounds in Ontario section 8 lansoprazole action

 
 
Tierney GB Deluzio

Tierney GB Deluzio
TGDeluzio@smart-biggar.ca

 
 

This motion arose in the context of a section 8 action in which Apotex claims damages for delay in the issuance of its notice of compliance for its generic lansoprazole product (Takeda's PREVACID), due to prohibition applications commenced by Abbott and Takeda.  Abbott and Takeda have pleaded patent infringement as a defence to the section 8 claim and have brought a counterclaim for patent infringement.  Apotex in turn has challenged the validity of Takeda’s patents.  As previously reported, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (2017 ONSC 2348) dismissed a motion for summary judgment brought by Abbott and Takeda and ordered the matter to proceed to a damages trial, scheduled to commence in January 2019.

Read more >>

 
 

Amgen not precluded from asserting patent under current PMNOC Regulations even though unsuccessful under old PMNOC Regulations

 
 
Urszula Wojtyra

Urszula Wojtyra
uwojtyra@smart-biggar.ca

 
 

The Federal Court of Canada has refused Pfizer’s motion to dismiss an action under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) between Amgen and Pfizer in relation to Pfizer’s proposed biosimilar (NIVESTYM) of Amgen’s filgrastim (NEUPOGEN): 2018 FC 1078. Pfizer sought to dismiss the action under section 6.08 of the PMNOC Regulations, asserting that the action is redundant, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process. Pfizer’s argument was based on a decision under the old PMNOC Regulations in which the Court found that Apotex’s allegation of invalidity was justified (as previously reported). Amgen’s second proceeding against Apotex under the old PMNOC Regulations was summarily dismissed as an abuse of process.  Pfizer argued on this motion that it is an abuse of the Court’s process for Amgen to invoke the PMNOC Regulations on that same patent. The Court disagreed, holding that the findings from the Apotex application cannot simply be grafted on to the present action as the Court in the Apotex application had not conclusively determined the validity of the patent. As actions commenced under the amended PMNOC Regulations determine different issues than in applications under the old PMNOC Regulations, the action was neither relitigation nor redundant. Pfizer would require leave from the Federal Court of Appeal to appeal the decision.

 
 

New Court Proceedings

For complete details about these proceedings, click here.

 
 

PMNOC Proceedings

sorafenib tosylate (NEXAVAR): Bayer v Apotex

dasatinib (SPRYCEL): Bristol-Myers Squibb v Teva

Other Proceedings

Undisclosed: Laboratoire Riva v Attorney General of Canada

 
 
Selected Rankings

 
 

Canadian IP Impact Case of the Year 
AstraZeneca v Apotex (NEXIUM)
LMG Life Sciences

Read more »

 

Canada’s Intellectual Property Litigation Firm of the Year
Benchmark Canada

Read more  »

 
 

EDITOR

Nancy Pei

 

     

CASE-LAW BRIEFS BY:

Andrew Mandlsohn Urszula Wojtyra Abigail Smith

Lynn Ing

Brandon Heard

Katie Lee

Tierney GB Deluzio

 

 

LITIGATION CONTACTS

Gunars Gaikis

Steven Garland

Sheldon Hamilton

Yoon Kang

Nancy Pei

 

Mark Biernacki

 

Jeremy Want

 

Colin Ingram

 

PROSECUTION CONTACTS

Christopher Robinson

Yoon Kang

Daphne Lainson

Thuy Nguyen

David Schwartz

 

Mark Pidkowich

 

   

REGULATORY CONTACTS

Nancy Pei

 

Alice Tseng

 

Daphne Lainson

 

 
 
 
 

OTTAWA / TORONTO / MONTREAL / VANCOUVER / CALGARY

 
 
 

UNPARALLELED IP

 
 
 

smart-biggar.ca

Twitter
LinkedIn
Forward to a Friend

The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.