I INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

We understand how seriously IP challenges can affect your business. We believe that no firm has achieved greater success in IP matters.

In the past 25 years, the Goodmans IP Team has obtained over 100 successfyl fnl judgements for its clients in IP proceedings

Please click the arrows below to view our successes over the last 25 years.

2021 - PRESENT
right-arrow.png

January 2021

Janssen v. Apotex, 2021 FC 7 (abiraterone)

2016 - 2020
right-arrow.png

September 2020

Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2020 FC 816 (tadalafil)

September 2020

Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2020 FC 814 (tadalafil)

July 2019

Evolution Technologies v. Human Care Canada, 2019 FCA 209 (Xpresso rollator)

May 2019

Les Laboratories Servier v. Apotex Inc., 2019 FC 616 (perindopril)

July 2018

Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2018 FC 736 (Prasugrel)

November 2017

Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada v Apotex Inc., 2017 FC 1061 (Aripiprazole)

March 2017

Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada v Apotex Inc., 2017 FC 296 (Dasatinib)

October 2016

Amgen Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, Order of Case Management Judge Milczynski (Filgrastim)

August 2016

Gilead Sciences Inc v Apotex Inc, 2016 FC 856 (Tenofovir)

June 2016

Apotex Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2016 FC 673 (Judicial Review)

April 2016

Shire Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2016 FC 382 (Dextroamphetamine-Amphetamine)

April 2016

Allergan Inc v Apotex Inc, 2016 FC 344 (Gatifloxacin)

2011 - 2015
right-arrow.png

November 2015

Amgen Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 1261 (Filgrastim)

October 2015

Apotex Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2015 FC 1161 (Judicial Review)

September 2015

Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 1016 (Tadalafil)

May 2015

Takeda Canada v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 570 (Ciclesonide)

April 2015

Pfizer Products Inc v Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, 2015 FC 493 (Viagra)

February 2015

Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 108 (Gliclazide MR)

December 2014

Teva Canada Innovation v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 1070 (Rasagiline Mesylate)

November 2014

Apotex Inc v Minister of Health et al, 2014 FC 1087 (Trazadone)

August 2014

Alcon Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 791 (Travoprost)

August 2014

Alcon Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 699 (Travoprost)

May 2014

Bayer Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 436 (Drospirenone)

May 2014

Bayer Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 403 (Drospirenone)

December 2013

Apotex Inc v Takeda Canada Inc, 2013 FC 1237 (Pantoprazole)

December 2013

Apotex Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2013 FC 1217 (Telmisartan)

July 2013

Hoffman-La Roche v Apotex Inc, 2013 FC 718 (Valgancyclovir)

May 2013

Apotex Inc v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2013 FC 493 (Azithromycin)

November 2012

Apotex Inc v Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, 2012 FC 1339 (Sildenafil)

May 2012

Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Aventis, 2012 FC 553 (Ramipril)

April 2012

Alcon Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2012 FC 410 (Olopatadine)

August 2011

Apotex Inc v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2011 FCA 236 (Latanoprost)

2006 - 2010
right-arrow.png

December 2010

Nu-Pharm Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 65 (Enalapril)

October 2010

Merck & Co v Apotex Inc, 2010 FC 1042 (Dorzolamide Timolol)

October 2010

Merck & Co v Apotex Inc, 2010 FC 1043 (Dorzolamide)

June 2010

AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2010 FC 714 (Esomeprazole)

March 2010

Apotex Inc v Merck & Co Inc, 2010 FC 287 (Norfloxacin)

January 2010

Biovail Corporation v Apotex Inc, 2010 FC 46 (Metformin)

July 2009

Apotex Inc v Minister of Health et al, 2009 FC 721 (Omeprazole)

June 2009

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2009 FC 676 (Ramipril)

June 2009

Janssen-Ortho Inc v Apotex Inc, 2009 FCA 212 (Levofloxacin)

June 2009

Janssen-Ortho Inc v Apotex Inc, 2009 FC 650 (Acetaminophen tramadol)

March 2009

Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2009 FC 320 (Raloxifene)

February 2009

Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada v Apotex Inc, 2009 FC 137 (Cefepime)

October 2008

Apotex Inc v Merck Canada Inc, 2008 FC 1185 (Alendronate)

July 2008

Abbott Laboratories v Apotex Inc, 2008 FC 919 (Lansoprazole)

April 2008

Shire Biochem v Apotex Inc, 2008 FC 538 (Modafinil)

March 2008

Solvay Pharma Inc v Apotex Inc, 2008 FC 308 (Pantoprazole)

February 2008

Eli Lilly Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2008 FC 142 (Raloxifene HCl)

January 2008

Pfizer Canada v Apotex Inc, 2008 FC 13 (Atorvastatin)

July 2007

Abbott Laboratories v Apotex Inc, 2007 FC 753 (Clarithromycin)

June 2007

AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Inc, 2007 FC 688 (Omeprazole)

June 2007

Pfizer Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2007 FC 642 (Quinapril)

January 2007

Pfizer Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2007 FC 26 (Sildenafil)

January 2007

Abbott Laboratories v Apotex Inc, 2006 FC 1558 (Clarithromycin)

November 2006

AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2006 SCC 49 (Omeprazole)

January 2006

AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Inc, 2006 FC 7 (Omeprazole)

2001 - 2005
right-arrow.png

November 2005

Aventis Pharma Inc v Apotex Inc, 2005 FC 1504 (Ramipril)

October 2005

Aventis Pharma Inc v Apotex Inc, 2005 FC 1461 (Ramipril)

October 2005

Pfizer Canada v Apotex Inc, 2005 FC 1421 (Azithromycin)

September 2005

Abbott Laboratories v Apotex Inc, 2005 FC 1332 (Clarithromycin)

September 2005

Aventis Pharma Inc v Apotex Inc, 2005 FC 1283 (Ramipril)

May 2005

Merck & Co v Apotex Inc, 2005 FC 755 (Alendronate)

September 2004

GlaxoSmithKline Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 1302 (Apo-salvant)

September 2004

AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2004 FC 1278 (Omeprazole)

April 2004

AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2004 FC 647 (Omeprazole)

March 2004

AB Hassle v Apotex Inc, 2004 FC 379 (Omeprazole)

March 2004

AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Inc, 2004 FC 313 (Omeprazole)

February 2004

Bayer AG v Apotex Inc, 2004 FC 177 (Ciprofloxacin HCl)

January 2004

Pfizer Canada v Apotex Inc, 2003 FC 1428 (Azithromycin dihydrate)

January 2004

AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Inc, 2004 FC 44 (Omeprazole)

November 2003

H Lundbeck A/S v Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FC 1334 (Citalopram)

June 2003

Apotex Inc v Ferring Inc, 2003 FCA 274 (Desmopressin)

May 2003

GlaxoSmithKline Inc v Apotex Inc, 2003 FCT 687 (Paroxetine)

November 2002

Merck Frosst Canada v Canada, 2002 FCT 1195 (Simvastatin)

November 2002

Pfizer Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2002 FCT 1138 (Sertraline)

June 2002

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2002 FCT 668 (Cyclosporine)

November 2001

AB Hassle v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare), 2001 FCT 1264 (Omeprazole)

November 2001

Syntex USA LLC v Canada (Minister of Health), 2001 FCT 1185 (Ketorolac)

October 2001

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2001 FCT 1129 (Cyclosporine)

July 2001

SmithKline Beecham Pharma Inc v Apotex Inc, 2001 FCT 770 (Paroxetine HCl)

February 2001

Glaxo Group Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health), 2001 FCT 16 (Cefuroxamine)

January 2001

Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada v Apotex Inc., 10 CPR (4th) 318 (Nefazadone)

1995 - 2000
right-arrow.png

October 2000

Eli Lilly and Co v Pro Doc Ltee, 9 CPR (4th) 20 (Nizatidine)

May 2000

Novartis AG v Apotex Inc, 6 CPR (4th) 129 (Terbinafine)

March 2000

Glaxo Group Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare), 6 CPR (4th) 73 (Cefuroxime)

September 1999

Fournier Pharma Inc v Apotex Inc, 2 CPR (4th) 351 (Fenofibrate)

June 1999

Schering Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 87 CPR (3d) 385 (Loratadine)

April 1999

Apotex Inc v Syntex Pharmaceuticals and Hoffman-La Roche, 1 CPR (4th) 22 (Naproxen)

April 1999

SmithKline Beecham Pharma Inc v Apotex Inc, 1 CPR (4th) 99 (Paroxetine HCl)

March 1999

Merck Frosst Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 87 CPR (3d) 62 (Lovastatin)

November 1998

Hoffman-La Roche v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare), 85 CPR (3d) 67 (Flunisolide)

November 1998

Hoffman-La Roche Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Health) and Pro Doc, 85 CPR (3d) 50 (Ticlopidine)

October 1998

Pfizer Canada Inc v Nu-Pharm Inc, 83 CPR (3d) 1 (FCTD) (Fluconazole)

September 1998

Abbott Laboratories v Nu-Pharm Inc, 83 CPR (3d) 441 (FCA) (Divalproex sodium)

July 1998

Bayer Inc v Apotex Inc, 82 CPR (3d) 359 (Ciprofloxacin)

July 1998

Merck Frosst Canada v Canada, [1998] 2 SCR 193 (Norfloxacin)

July 1998

Apotex Inc v Eli Lilly and Company, [1998] 2 SCR 129 (Nizatidine)

March 1998

Merck & Co v Canada (Minister of Health), 79 CPR (3d) 57 (Lovastatin)

March 1998

Glaxo Group Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare), 80 CPR (3d) 424 (Ranitidine)

February 1998

Pfizer Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 78 CPR (3d) 3 (Fluconazole)

August 1997

Glaxo Wellcome Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), 75 CPR (3d) 129 (Acyclovir)

April 1997

Eli Lilly and Company v Nu-Pharm Inc; Eli Lilly and Company v Apotex Inc, 73 CPR (3d) 371 (Prozac)

April 1997

Merck Frosst Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 72 CPR (3d) 453 (Lovastatin)

April 1997

Merck Frosst Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 72 CPR (3d) 468 (Lovastatin)

October 1996

Zeneca Pharma Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare), 69 CPR (3d) 451 (Lisinopril)

July 1996

Merck Frosst Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 69 CPR (3d) 62  (Famotidine)

March 1996

Hoffman-La Roche v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare), 67 CPR (3d) 484 (Ticlopidine)

September 1995

Eli Lilly & Co v Apotex Inc, 63 CPR (3d) 245 (Cefaclor)

April 1995

Apotex Inc v Merck & Co Inc, 60 CPR (3d) 356 (Enalapril)

Given the frequency of our appearances, we have an intimate knowledge of best practices in the Federal Courts. This knowledge allows us not only to tailor our arguments and evidence to the idiosyncrasies of particular judges but also to call upon just the right member of the Court’s staff to expedite a filing or secure an emergency hearing.

Goodmans IP Infographic - trials, hearings, patent cases, cross-examinations

The leading cases on IP-related issues have been defined by our highly-refined arguments and meticulously-procured evidence. Our track record at the forefront of the development of IP law speaks for itself:
 

  • AstraZeneca Canada v. Apotex, 2017 SCC 36 – the leading case on the law of utility; 

  • Eli Lilly Canada v. Apotex, 2009 FCA 97 – the leading case on the disclosure requirements associated with inventions based on a sound prediction of utility;

  • Apotex v. Wellcome Foundation, 2002 SCC 77 – the leading case in which the doctrine of sound prediction of utility was first definitively accepted into law in Canada;

  • Apotex v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada, 2008 SCC 61 – the leading case on anticipation and obviousness;

  • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd., 1998 2 SCR 129, the leading case regarding the interpretation of licence agreements and pharmaceutical supply contracts;

  • Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 3 S.C.R. 1100, the leading case regarding the ability of Courts to require governmental action, including with respect to granting marketing approval for pharmaceutical products;

  • Apotex v. Sanofi-Aventis, 2014 FCA 68 – the leading case regarding the assessment of damages for being wrongfully held off the market by an invalid patent;

  • Apotex v. Merck, 2015 FCA 171 – the first case in Canada permitting patent damages to be calculated by reference to a non-infringing alternative, thereby aligning the approach to Canadian patent law damages with that taken in the U.S.; and

  • Apotex v. ADIR, 2017 FCA 23 – the most recent pronouncement from the Federal Court of Appeal on the accounting of profits remedy.
     

We will tailor a team with precisely the right expertise and experience to tackle your IP challenge.  

 
I RECENT INDUSTRY RECOGNITION
Benchmark Canada (Goodmans Intellectual Property Blog)

Benchmark Canada: The Guide to Canada’s Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys 2021 ranks Goodmans as Recommended in Ontario and also recognizes seven of the firm’s litigators as “Litigation Stars”. 

Benchmark Canada: The Guide to Canada’s Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys 2020 ranks Goodmans as Recommended in Ontario and also recognizes seven of the firm’s litigators as “Litigation Stars”. 

 

Benchmark Canada 2019 recognizes six of the firm's litigators as "Litigation Stars". 

MIP_IP_Stars_logo_draft_final_bold_star.png

IP Stars 2021 ranks Goodmans as Tier 1 for Patent Contentious with Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Richard Naiberg and Harry Radomski recognized as Patent Stars, as well as Jaclyn Tilak recognized for "Rising Star" and Amalia Berg as a “Trade Mark Star” and one of the “Top 250 Women in IP”.

 

IP Stars 2020 and 2019 ranks Goodmans as Tier 1 for Patent Contentious with Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio and Harry Radomski recognized as Patent Stars, as well as Kirby Cohen recognized for "Rising Star".

ChambersCanada2022Badge_edited.jpg

Chambers Canada 2022 recognized Goodmans IP Litigation practice as Tier 1 and ranked six IP Partners in the guide. Market commentators note that the team has a "strong IP litigation practice" and crop of "excellent litigators."

Chambers Canada 2021 recognized Goodmans IP Litigation practice as Tier 1 and ranked six IP Partners in the guide.

Chambers Canada 2020 recognized Goodmans IP Litigation practice as Tier 1. Market commentators note that the team is "top of the market", "the best of the best for patent litigation in Canada", and that "Goodman's IP litigation team is excellent at every level and has an unrivaled record of success."

Chambers Canada 2019 recognized Goodmans as a leading law firm in the area of IP/IT Litigation. Sources note: "They're the best patent litigation firm in Canada." Harry Radomski was ranked along with only one other lawyer in Canada as a Star Individual (ranked as Star Individual since 1st edition).

IAM Patent (Goodmans Intellectual Property Blog)

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000 2021 ranks Goodmans “Gold” (highest ranking) for patent litigation.

IAM Patent 1000 2021 – Litigation.  Harry Radomski and Andrew Brodkin are ranked “Gold”, Dino Clarizio, Jordan Scopa and Ben Hackett are ranked “Silver” and Richard Naiberg is named “Bronze”.

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000 2020 and 2019 ranks Goodmans “Gold” (highest ranking) for patent litigation and transactions.

Euromoney (Goodmans Intellectual Property Blog)

Euromoney ranked Harry Radomski as one of the top three Canadian patent lawyers and top 25 in the world; and Andrew Brodkin was ranked one of the top 25 Canadian patent lawyers.

0356_637538417857076567.png

The 2021 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory ranks Goodmans as the highest ranking, “Most Frequently Recommended”, in Litigation - Intellectual Property with 8 Goodmans lawyers recognized as leading IP lawyers, including Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Ben Hackett, Richard Naiberg, Harry Radomski, Jerry Topolski and Jordan Scopa.

The 2020 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory ranks Goodmans as the highest ranking, “Most Frequently Recommended”, in Litigation - Intellectual Property with 6 Goodmans lawyers recognized as leading IP lawyers, including Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Ben Hackett, Richard Naiberg, Harry Radomski, and Jordan Scopa.

The 2019 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory ranks Goodmans as the highest ranking, “Most Frequently Recommended”, in Litigation - Intellectual Property with 6 Goodmans lawyers recognized as leading IP litigators, including Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Ben Hackett, Richard Naiberg, Harry Radomski, and Jordan Scopa.

Best Lawyers (Goodmans Intellectual Property Blog)

Best Lawyers 2022 ranked ten Goodmans partners as leading intellectual property lawyers including:  Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Jordan Scopa, Ben Hackett, Richard Naiberg, Harry Radomski, Peter Ruby, Sandon Shogilev and Jerry Topolski.

2021logo.jpg

The 2021 Lexpert/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada recognizes three Goodmans lawyers as leaders in IP, including Harry Radomski and Andrew Brodkin as leading IP litigators and Dino Clarizio as a leading IP lawyer.

The 2020 Lexpert/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada recognizes three of our lawyers as leaders in IP, including Harry Radomski and Andrew Brodkin as leading IP litigators and Dino Clarizio as a leading IP lawyer.

The Lexpert/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada ranked Goodmans as the highest ranking “Most Frequently Recommended” in Litigation - Intellectual Property, including leading IP litigators Andrew Brodkin and Harry Radomski. Dino Clarizio was also included as a leading IP lawyer.  

The Lexpert Guide to the Leading US/Canada Cross-Border Litigation Lawyers in Canada ranks four Goodmans lawyers in the area of Litigation – Intellectual Property: Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Richard Naiberg, and Harry Radomski. 

The Lexpert Special Edition - Canada’s Leading Litigation Lawyers recognized four Goodmans lawyers in the area of Litigation – Intellectual Property: Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Richard Naiberg, and Harry Radomski.

who who legal.jpg

Who’s Who Legal 2021 recommended seven Goodmans lawyers for their work in Intellectual Property including, Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Ben Hackett, Richard Naiberg, Harry Radomski and Jordan Scopa.

Who’s Who Legal: Life Sciences - Patent Litigation recognizes law firms that are well versed at handling patent disputes across a range of industry sectors, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical devices.

  • In 2019, Goodmans was recognized as a leading patent litigation law firm with six lawyers highlighted as leading patent litigators: Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Ben Hackett, Richard Naiberg, Jordan Scopa and Harry Radomski. 

Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders are individuals who received the highest number of nominations from peers, corporate counsel, and other market sources. Who’s Who Legal identified them as being truly outstanding practitioners and the very best in their field.

  • In 2021, Andrew Brodkin and Harry Radomski were named “Global Elite Thought Leader” for their work in Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation.

  • Recently, Who's Who Legal ranked Harry Radomski as a "Global Elite Thought Leader" in both Life Sciences (2020) and Life Sciences - Patent Litigation (2019).

Who’s Who Legal: Patents

  • In 2019, Andrew Brodkin, Dino Clarizio, Ben Hackett, Richard Naiberg, and Harry Radomski  were recognized for their work and expertise in Patent Law

 

Who's Who Legal: Trademarks 2019 recognized Amalia Berg as both a "National Leader" and a "Global Leader" for her work and expertise.

  • Twitter Icon (Goodmans IP)
  • LinkedIn Icon (Goodmans IP)
  • Goodmans Intellectual Property Web