Ontario Superior Court summarily dismisses Apotex’s novel monetary claims under Statutes of Monopolies, Trademarks Act, and at common law

On March 8, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court granted summary judgment dismissing novel claims by Apotex under the UK and Ontario Statutes of Monopolies, the Trademarks Act, and at common law. It is the first decision on the merits of Apotex’s novel claims and arises in the context of litigation relating to Eli Lilly’s patented olanzapine product (marketed as Zyprexa®). The decision stands to impact numerous actions brought by generics on similar grounds against various innovator companies.

Procedural Background

Apotex Inc. and Apotex Pharmachem Inc. (collectively, Apotex) brought an action in the Ontario Superior Court seeking damages … Continue Reading

Finality, finally: Adir and Servier Canada Inc. confirm their perindopril win

By Judith Robinson and Joanne Chriqui on November 1, 2020 Posted in Damages, Intellectual property, Life sciences and healthcare, Pharmaceuticals and life sciences

The 14 year perindopril litigation in Canada is over, with Adir and Servier Canada Inc. (collectively “Servier”) emerging victorious against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Pharmachem Inc. (collectively “Apotex”). The end was marked by the Supreme Court of Canada’s dismissal of Apotex’s application for leave to appeal a decision requiring it to disgorge its profits associated with infringement of Servier’s patent.

Judith Robinson and Joanne Chriqui of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada are proud to have successfully represented Servier at all levels of this hotly contested litigation.

The first chapter was a 2008 trial judgment upholding the validity … Continue Reading

Federal Court reinstates damages decision concerning prejudgment interest

By Colin Hyslop, David Yi and Allyson Whyte Nowak on January 15, 2020 Posted in Damages

The Federal Court has vindicated Lilly, reinstating a patent infringement damages decision that awarded Lilly prejudgment interest equal to its average annual rate of return during the interest earning period, on a compound basis. It found that Lilly’s real-world rate of return was convincing evidence of both what could have and what would have occurred in the but-for world.

Background

This was a redetermination of the prejudgment interest portion of damages awarded to Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (collectively, Lilly) for patent infringement by Apotex Inc. (Apotex) in respect of Lilly’s drug cefaclor. … Continue Reading