Canadian Technology & IP Law : Canadian Technology Lawyers & Attorneys : Stikeman Elliott Law Firm : IP Law in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa & Vancouver

Bridgeview Manufacturing Inc. v. Duratech Industries International, Inc., 2010 FCA 188

Bridgeview Manufacturing Inc. (Bridgeview) and Highline Manufacturing Ltd. (Highline) brought an action against Duratech Industries International, Inc. (Duratech) et al. for infringement of claims 1, 2 and 4 of Canadian Patent No. 2,282,334 (the 334 patent) relating to bale processors, machines designed to disintegrate or break up large bales of straw, hay or other crop material.  Duratech denied infringement and counterclaimed alleging invalidity of the 334 patent.  The judge dismissed Bridgeview’s claim and allowed Duratech’s counterclaim, finding that the 334 patent was invalid for obviousness.  This was an appeal of that decision.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

On July 17, 2010, CSI, the company formed as a royalty-collection vehicle by the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA)  and the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC) , proposed three new tariffs which would apply to the reproduction of music (which can include broadcasting, streaming and downloading) by non-commercial radio stations, online music providers, and satellite radio providers.

In the proposed CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. Non-Commercial Radio Tariff, 2011, CSI is requesting that the Copyright Board of Canada  certify a tariff of 0.63% of the annual gross operating costs of radio stations that are either owned or operated by not-for-profit corporations, excluding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  In the case of such a non-commercial radio station that is a “low use station” (generally, a station that plays music for less than 20% of its broadcast time), the tariff would be lower, at 0.23% of its annual gross operating costs.  In exchange for the payment of the tariff, the non-commercial radio stations would receive a license to broadcast music contained in CSI’s repertoire as often as desired, including the streaming of the broadcast over the Internet.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

Purdue Pharma v. The Minister of Health, 2010 FC 738

Purdue Pharma sought judicial review of a decision of the Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison (OPML) in which the OPML determined that one of Purdue’s patents (the 738 Patent) was not eligible for listing on the Patent Register maintained in accordance with the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations) in respect of the drug TARGIN.  TARGIN is a controlled-release drug in tablet form that contains two medicinal ingredients: oxycodone hydrochloride (a painkiller), and naloxone hydrochloride, which counteracts certain side effects of oxycodone.  The 738 Patent contemplates a controlled-release technology for delivering oxycodone, and contains 28 claims, none of which mention naloxone.  Claim 5 was particularly at issue, and claims, “A solid controlled release oral dosage form, comprising oxycodone or a salt thereof … an effective amount of a controlled release matrix … and … a suitable amount of a suitable pharmaceutical diluent …”

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. v. Novopharm Limited et al., 2010 FC 668

Even though generic pharmaceutical companies invest significant time and funds into the preparation of notices of allegations (“NOA”s), the Federal Court has confirmed that such documents should remain available to the public and not be designated as confidential information under the terms of a protective order.

In an application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”) in relation to the drug pregabalin, the Honourable Mr. Justice Crampton dismissed an appeal from a decision of Madam Prothonotary Milczynski dismissing a motion by Novopharm Limited (“Novopharm”), which sought a protective order designating, among other things, its NOA as confidential pursuant to Rule 151 of the Federal Courts Rules.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

Sandoz Canada Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 2010 FCA 168

The Federal Court of Appeal rendered a decision that will have important implications on the litigation strategy of pharmaceutical companies.

Although the Federal Court issued an order under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (the “Regulations”) prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a notice of compliance (“NOC”) to Sandoz for its clarithromycin extended release 500 mg tablets until after expiry of the 266 patent (a decision appealed by Sandoz), Abbott also cross-appealed from this decision.  The court found that Abbott had failed to adequately respond to Sandoz’ allegation of invalidity with respect to double patenting of claim 22 of the 395 patent over the 541 patent.  Accordingly, Abbott sought that the court’s decision dismissing an order of prohibition in relation to the 395 patent be set aside.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

Prompted by meetings with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) earlier this year to improve its privacy settings, Facebook has announced that users can now choose an “opt-in” option before allowing third-party applications to access their personal information.  This will allow the website’s users to see exactly which parts of their personal data third-party applications will need before they choose to download them.

Previously, third-party applications were required to ask for a user’s permission before accessing any personal information, but they were not asked to specify exactly what information was needed.  Now, third-party applications must list exactly what information they will need, such as photos, videos or friends’ lists.  The new privacy settings also allow users to give permission to a third-party application before it can access their friends’ data.
Although the option to “opt-in” is a welcome change from the option to “opt-out”, most third-party applications must still be allowed to access all the data before they can run.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, 2010 FC 633

In an action commenced by Apotex to impeach Pfizer’s ‘446 patent relating to the drug Viagra (medicinal ingredient sildenafil citrate), Apotex brought a motion seeking to strike those portions of Pfizer’s statement of defence pleading res judicata and abuse of process.  The motion was surprisingly dismissed by the court.

Background

Apotex had previously sought to invalidate Pfizer’s ‘446 patent in proceedings commenced by Pfizer under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“Regulations”).  On September 27, 2007, however, Mr. Justice Mosley upheld the ‘446 patent, and granted an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a notice of compliance to Apotex.  This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 16, 2009, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was not sought.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print

On June 18, 2010, Canada’s Minister of Finance announced the launch of the Task Force for the Payments System Review. The Minister of Finance announced that the Task Force’s mandate is to review:

1. the safety, soundness and  efficiency of the payments system;
2. whether there is sufficient innovation in the payments system;
3. the competitive landscape;
4. whether businesses and consumers are being well served by payments system providers; and
5. whether current payments system oversight mechanisms remain appropriate.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print