SCC denies Apotex leave to appeal ramipril pleadings amendment decision
As previously reported, Apotex sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (2018 ONCA 890) permitting Sanofi and Schering to amend their defences to claims under the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, U.K. Statute of Monopolies and Trade-Marks Act. Apotex’s claims rely on Sanofi-Aventis Canada v Apotex Inc, 2009 FC 676 (“invalidity decision”), which found certain claims of Canadian Patent No. 1,341,206 invalid on the basis of the “promise doctrine”. The ONCA permitted Sanofi and Schering to plead that AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v Apotex Inc, 2017 SCC 36 – which rejected the promise doctrine as “unsound” – rendered the invalidity decision suspect. On May 16, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Apotex’s application for leave to appeal (Case No. 38471).
SCC denies Apotex leave to appeal cefaclor damages decision re: non-infringing alternative defence
As previously reported, Apotex sought leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (2018 FCA 217) relating to damages awarded to Eli Lilly in respect of Apotex’s infringement of process patents relating to cefaclor. The FCA concluded that a non-infringing alternative defence was not available to Apotex. On May 23, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Apotex’s application for leave to appeal (Case No. 38485).