Publication
“AI and sustainability - cure or curse?”
While AI can help resolve data issues in sustainable investing, it can create problems such as information breaches and inherent bias in data.
Global | Publication | March 2017
Case: Apotex Inc v AstraZeneca Canada Inc, et al (SCC Docket: 37478)
Drug: LOSEC® (omeprazole)
Nature of case: Appeal from validity and infringement action under the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 (Patent Act)
Appellant: Apotex Inc. (Apotex)
Respondents: AstraZeneca Canada Inc., AstraZeneca AB and Aktiebolaget Hässle (collectively AstraZeneca)
Date: March 13, 2017
On March 13, 2017, Apotex filed for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s (FCA) decision addressing validity and infringement of AstraZeneca’s Canadian Patent No. 1,292,693 (the 693 Patent) (reported here) with the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).
As we reported, the Federal Court held AstraZeneca’s patent valid and infringed by Apotex’s manufacture, sale, and promotion of Apo-Omeprazole capsules.
On appeal, the FCA upheld the Federal Court’s findings on construction, validity and infringement, and affirmed that a patent need only describe a single method or process for making the claimed invention. However, the FCA overturned the Federal Court’s decision on the applicable limitation periods, and held that, as the 693 Patent is covered by the pre-1989 Patent Act, provincial statutory limitations would apply to any “cause of action arising in that province” instead of the six-year federal limitation period. The FCA also dismissed AstraZeneca’s cross-appeal on punitive damages.
Publication
While AI can help resolve data issues in sustainable investing, it can create problems such as information breaches and inherent bias in data.
Publication
In this edition of Regulation Around the World we review recent steps that financial services regulatory authorities have taken as regards investment research.
Publication
n a long-running dispute, taking in no less than three arbitrations spanning 26 years cumulatively (involving allegations of state interference in the arbitral process), the Court has provided useful guidance on the ss.67 and 68 challenges, particularly in the context of investor-state claims.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023