Federal Court Of Appeal Affirms Minister Of Health Reasonable In Concluding Successor Second Person Was Entitled To Benefit Of NOA Served By Predecessor

SB
Smart & Biggar

Contributor

Smart & Biggar uncovers and maximizes intellectual property and technology assets for our clients. Today’s fast-paced innovation economy demands a higher level of expertise and attention to detail when it comes to IP strategy and protection. With over 125 lawyers, patent agents and trademark agents collaborating across five Canadian offices, Smart & Biggar is trusted by the world’s leading innovators to find value in their IP rights. As market leaders in IP, Smart & Biggar’s team is on the pulse when it comes to the latest developments and the wider industry changes that impact our clients. To stay informed, visit smartbiggar.ca/insights, including access to our RxIP Update (smartbiggar.ca/insights/rx-ip-updates), a monthly digest of the latest decisions and law surrounding the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries.
On May 26, 2023, the Minister of Health determined that Biosimilar Collaborations Ireland Limited was entitled to the benefit of section 5 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations)...
Canada Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On May 26, 2023, the Minister of Health determined that Biosimilar Collaborations Ireland Limited was entitled to the benefit of section 5 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), including prior service of a Notice of Allegation by the previous owner of the new drug submission for YESAFIL (an aflibercept biosimilar). As previously reported, the Federal Court determined that the Minister of Health's decision was reasonable. On February 13, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed Bayer and Regeneron's appeal: Bayer Inc v BGP Pharma ULC (Viatris Canada), 2024 FCA 29.

The FCA held that the Federal Court did not err in determining or applying the appropriate standard of review (reasonableness). The FCA explained that administration of section 5 of the Regulations "squarely falls within the purview of the Minister", and the "Court's role as first instance decision-maker arises only when a proceeding is initiated under section 6 of the Regulations".

Any further appeal would require leave from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Pharmaceutical Litigation Group.

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More