Tag archives: Federal Court of Appeal

Federal Courts update guidance on COVID-19

The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) provided updated guidance for resuming hearings starting September 1, 2020 and clarified the effect of the federal Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) on timelines for commencing and conducting litigation in the FCA. Both the FCA and the Federal Court confirmed that all Practice Directions, judgments, orders and directions from both courts remain in full force and effect.

Resumption of in-person hearings

On September 1, 2020, the FCA issued a Notice to the Parties and Profession (Notice) confirming that three types of hearings will be held during the Court’s … Continue Reading

Federal Courts begin to phase out the Suspension Period

On June 11, 2020 the Federal Court (FC) and Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) published updated notices to gradually phase out the Suspension Period, which had previously been extended to June 15, 2020.

Federal Court

The FC’s June 11, 2020 Practice Direction and Order (Updated Order), amends its previous Practice Directions, which, subject to the amendments listed, continue to remain in force. The Updated Order provides for different procedures by region.

Ontario, Québec and the Territories

Suspension Period: Subject to the five exceptions listed in April 29th practice direction, the Suspension Period is … Continue Reading

Federal Courts Extend Suspension Periods to June 15

The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) and the Federal Court (FC) have extended their Suspension Periods to June 15, 2020.

Federal Court of Appeal

On May 28, 2020, the FCA issued a Notice to the Parties and the Profession extending the Suspension Period to June 15, 2020.

Federal Court

On May 29, 2020, the FC issued an updated Practice Direction and Order (FC Update), also extending the Suspension Period to June 15, 2020. Pursuant to the FC Update:

  • the Suspension Period is still subject to the five exceptions listed in the FC’s Practice Direction
Continue Reading

Federal Court of Appeal revisits obviousness: guidance provided on “inventive concept” and “obvious to try” test

Case: Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co v Teva Canada Limited, 2017 FCA 76 (A-191-16), aff’g (for different reasons) 2016 FC 580 (Court File No. T-1364-14)

Drug: REYATAZ® (atazanavir bisulfate)

Nature of case: Appeal from application for prohibition order granted pursuant to section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 (the Regulations)

Successful party: Teva Canada Limited (Teva)

Date of decision: April 11, 2017

Summary

The Federal Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the meaning of “inventive concept.” In dismissing an appeal from the Federal Court’s finding that claims for the bisulfate … Continue Reading

LexBlog