Ontario Court Of Appeal Dismisses Summary Judgment Appeal In Section 8 Case

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.
The appellants argued that Apo-Lansoprazole could not and would not have received regulatory approval in April 2007 and Apotex was not entitled to damages.
Canada Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

As previously reported, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Abbott and Takeda's motion for summary judgment in an action brought by Apotex under section 8 of the PMNOC Regulations. The action relates to lansoprazole, the active ingredient in Apo-Lansoprazole and Abbott's PREVACID. On April 5, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Abbott and Takeda's appeal: Apotex Inc. v Abbott Laboratories Limited, 2018 ONCA 332. The appellants argued that Apo-Lansoprazole could not and would not have received regulatory approval in April 2007 and Apotex was not entitled to damages. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the motions judge did not err in finding that Apo-Lansoprazole would have received approval in April 2007. This date was consistent with Apotex's expert evidence and the timing of Health Canada's letter indicating that Apo-Lansoprazole was approvable in the real world. While Health Canada subsequently reversed its position, that reversal could only be relevant to the quantum of Apotex's damages and did not render the earlier letter void ab initio.

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.

See More Popular Content From

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