First Reference company logo

Inside Internal Controls

News and discussion on implementing risk management

machine cogs image

patent infringement

Federal Court of Appeal clarifies key damages concepts

Late last month, the Federal Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision in Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 2018 FCA 217. In the underlying litigation, the Federal Court awarded damages to Eli Lilly because Apotex had infringed Eli Lilly’s patented process for making a cephalosporin antibiotic.

 

, , ,

That’s a wrap: Springboard profits, full cost accounting, and more from the Federal Court in Dow v. Nova

Overall, the decision provides clarification about the Federal Court’s approach to a diverse range of issues which can arise in accounting of profits cases. Moreover, the decision is the latest demonstration of the Federal Court’s willingness to consider flexible approaches to procedural and substantive issues to enable just and expeditious outcomes.

 

, , , , , ,

Promise doctrine abolished by the Supreme Court of Canada

On June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada, released a landmark patent decision (2017 SCC 36) abolishing Canada’s so-called ‘Promise Doctrine’ by finding it “unsound”, “not good law” and “incongruent with the both the words and scheme of the Patent Act.”

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Where does a cause of action for patent infringement arise?

In Apotex Inc. v Astrazeneca Canada Inc., 2017 FCA 9, the Court of Appeal had to interpret section 39 of the Federal Courts Act in order to determine the appropriate limitation period for those patents that issued before a six–year limitation period was established by section 55.01 of the Patent Act in 1993.

 

, , , , , , , , ,