Publication
La Cour suprême du Canada tranche : les cadres ne pourront se syndiquer au Québec
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Case: AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (SCC file no. 36654)
Drug: NEXIUM® (esomeprazole)
Nature of case: Leave to Appeal of a judgment on invalidity of Canadian Patent No. 2,139,653 (‘653 Patent)
Successful party: AstraZeneca Canada Inc.
Date of decision: March 10, 2016
On March 10, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) granted AstraZeneca Canada Inc. (AstraZeneca) leave to appeal an order of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) affirming the Trial Judge’s finding that the ‘653 Patent is invalid for lack of utility (FCA Decision).
The FCA Decision contains an extensive discussion on the applicable standard for patent utility in Canada, including the "promise" doctrine. This is an opportunity for the SCC to provide guidance on an issue that has been the subject of much debate over recent years.
Apotex Inc. (Apotex) sought to impeach the ‘653 Patent on the basis of lack of utility, anticipation and obviousness. Justice Rennie held that the promised utility of the ‘653 Patent (compounds provide improved pharmacokinetic and metabolic properties with an improved therapeutic profile) was not demonstrated nor soundly predicted at the Canadian filing date. Apotex’s allegations of obviousness and anticipation were dismissed.
AstraZeneca appealed Justice Rennie’s decision on the following grounds: (a) he failed to consider the patent’s promised utility on a claim by claim basis; (b) he failed to construe the utility of the claims in a manner consistent with the inventive concept and; (c) he failed to apply a purposive construction to the promise of utility. The Federal Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge properly construed the “promise” of the patent by considering the patent as a whole through the eyes of the skilled reader, and properly considered the difference between “goals” and “promises”. The appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court of Canada Case Summary may be found at:
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=36654
Our summary of the Federal Court of Appeal decision may be found here.
The Federal Court decision may be found at:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/72284/index.do
Publication
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication
Le budget 2024 propose d’élargir la portée de certains pouvoirs permettant à l’ARC de demander des renseignements aux contribuables tout en prévoyant de nouvelles conséquences pour les contribuables contrevenants.
Publication
L'impôt minimum de remplacement (IMR) est un impôt sur le revenu additionnel prévu dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) (la « Loi ») auquel sont assujettis les particuliers et certaines fiducies qui pourraient autrement avoir recours à certaines déductions et exemptions et à certains crédits pour réduire leur impôt sur le revenu fédéral canadien régulier.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023