Patent Cases

Application for an order of prohibition is dismissed for a unit dose patent
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2015 FC 125
Drug: CIALIS® tadalafil

The Court found that Mylan’s allegations of lack of utility, anticipation and obviousness were justified. As a result, the application was dismissed.

Application for an order of prohibition is dismissed
Janssen Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FC 184
Drug: VELCADE® bortezomib

The Court found that Teva’s allegation of obviousness was justified. As a result, the application was dismissed.

Trademark Cases

Leave to appeal dismissed for a design mark relating to wood preservatives
Osmose-Pentox Inc. v. Société Laurentide Inc.,SCC File No. 36033

The Supreme Court has dismissed Osmose-Pentox’s leave for appeal for infringement of the CONSERVATOR design mark. The second letter “O” is replaced with a hard hat in the mark.

The Supreme Court had summarized the leave as follows: The applicant, Osmose-Pentox, manufactures and sells wood coatings and wood preservatives under various trademarks. One of the products it produces is a wood primer sealer sold in containers bearing a label with the design mark. In 2002, Osmose-Pentox instituted proceedings against the respondent, Société Laurentides, for infringement of its right to the exclusive use of its registered trademark. Société Laurentides had been producing a wood primer sealer with a label on which it was written “Wood CONSERVATOR” and “CONSERVATEUR pour bois”. The Federal Court found that there was no trademark infringement within the meaning of s. 20(1) of the Trademarks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 (the “Act”), and dismissed the action. The Court also dismissed Osmose-Pentox’s arguments with respect to confusion and passing-off. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.


Chantal Saunders

Beverley Moore

Adrian J. Howard


Intellectual Property