Tracey Stott practises intellectual property law as a barrister and solicitor, with particular experience in matters that impact the innovative pharmaceutical industry.
Her scientific knowledge combined with a deep understanding of patent law allows her to help her clients create and protect intellectual property at all stages. She has experience in all aspects of pharmaceutical patent litigation, including infringement and validity actions and proceedings under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. She also advises on various regulatory regimes, including data protection, biologics, Certificates of Supplementary Protection and the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
Dr. Stott is co-editor of our firm's Pharma in Brief bulletin, which provides timely updates on legal and regulatory developments affecting the pharmaceutical industry. She is also active in the IP community, including as chair of the Toronto Intellectual Property Group.
Dr. Stott’s graduate research involved the synthesis and study of metal-organic hybrid materials and her research has been published in scientific journals.
Prior to joining our Toronto office, Dr. Stott practised with a leading national IP boutique.
LL.B., University of British Columbia, 2008
Ph.D., Chemistry, University of British Columbia, 2005
B.Sc.(Hons.) Chemistry, Dalhousie University, 2000
- Canada (trade-marks) 2012
- Ontario 2009
- "Embracing change: Are you ready for legal and regulatory developments in Canada's intellectual property framework?" (co-author: Kristin Wall), Insights Spring 2017.
Memberships and activities
- Toronto Intellectual Property Group (chair, 2017-2018)
- Canadian Bar Association (member, Biotechnology Committee)
- Ontario Bar Association
- Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (member, Young Practitioners Committee)
- The Advocates' Society
- Canadian Society for Chemistry
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed BMS’s appeal from the Federal Court’s finding that claims for the bisulfate salt of atazanavir were obvious, and provided guidance on the meaning of “inventive concept” and the application of the leading Plavix decisions to obviousness..
April 25, 2017
The Federal Court dismissed Bristol-Myers Squibb’s prohibition application, finding that one of the patents had an overarching promise and lacked utility, and the other patent was “obvious to try.” .
March 29, 2017