On July 24, 2013 the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision reversing the trial court’s ruling that Sanofi’s patent covering Plavix is invalid. For the full written decision see: Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis, 2013 FCA 187.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal provides clarification on invalidity in light of the so-called promise of the patent. Not all patents contain a promise. For there to be a promise, it must be both explicit and specific. The Court of Appeal also reiterates the requirement that for an invention to be obvious, it must be self-evident that what is obvious … Continue Reading
It is said that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. That phrase could certainly apply to Merck’s recent win over Apotex in a damages trial for patent infringement in Canada, in a case that started in 1997.
The liability decision finding Apotex guilty of infringement was released in December 2010. To view the Lexpert write-up of the liability decision click here. It took another two years before we arrived at the damages trial. It commenced on April 8, 2013 in Toronto. On July 16, 2013, the public damages judgment was released. Merck was awarded damages … Continue Reading
In recent years major Canadian retailers have been named as defendants in patent infringement lawsuits, including Wal-Mart (T-1841-11), Costco (T-1841-11), Canadian Tire (T-1002-12) and Home Depot (T-1112-13). The common thread linking these and other cases is that the plaintiff is asserting patent rights against a retailer that sells, but does not manufacture, allegedly infringing products in its stores.
Indemnity agreements between retailers and manufacturers who supply product are common. However, such agreements may not provide retailers with sufficient protection. Plaintiffs will often pursue retailers because they are more likely to satisfy a judgment than manufacturers. Sometimes, plaintiffs do not … Continue Reading