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.
Please click the arrows below to view our successes over the last 25 years.
2021 - PRESENT
December 2024
Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. v. ARC Resources Ltd., 2024 FCA 212
April 2024
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2024 FCA 72 (tadalafil)
April 2024
Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. v. ARC Resources Ltd., 2024 FCA 67
February 2024
Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2024 FC 106 (dexlansoprazole)
December 2023
Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. v. ARC Resources Ltd., 2023 FC 1684
December 2023
AbbVie Corporation v. JAMP Pharma Corporation, 2023 FC 1520 (adalimumab)
June 2023
Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2023 FC 125 (tadalafil)
February 2023
Allergan Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2022 FC 260 (risedronate)
October 2022
Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2022 FC 1398 (tadalafil)
July 2022
Steelhead v. ARC Resources, 2022 FC 998
January 2021
Janssen v. Apotex, 2021 FC 7 (abiraterone)
2016 - 2020
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Chambers Canada 2025 recognized Goodmans IP Litigation practice with a Band 1 ranking and ranked 6 IP lawyers in the guide. Two of whom are the only "Star Individuals" ranked across Canada.
-
Andrew Brodkin ranked "Star Individual", is described by clients as "one of the top litigators in the patent litigation and pharmaceutical space in Canada"
-
Harry Radomski, ranked Star Individual, is described by clients as "the cream of the crop of pharmaceutical patent litigators."
-
Jordan Scopa ranked Band 2, is described by clients as "an outstanding appellate lawyer who is very analytical"
-
Ben Hackett, ranked Band 4, is described by clients as "a well-respected patent litigator across the bar. He is excellent in court and also participates in industry groups on a regular basis."
-
Jenene Roberts, ranked Up and Coming, is described by clients as "a very smart and hard-working, up-and-coming pharmaceutical patent litigator"
-
Jaclyn Tilak, ranked Associate to Watch, is commended by clients for her work "on a wide range of complex cases."
​
​Chambers Canada has consistently recognized Goodmans IP Litigation practice with a Band 1 ranking since 2020.​​
​Benchmark Litigation Canada 2025, 2024 and 2023 ranked Goodmans as “Highly Recommended” for dispute resolution. Sixteen Goodmans litigators were recognized as "Litigation Stars" and "Future Stars" in 2025 and 2024.
​
Benchmark Canada 2024 named Goodmans Canada Firm of the Year - Patent Disputes, and awarded Andrew Brodkin as Intellectual Property Litigator of the Year.​
For the second year in a row, Managing IP Awards Americas 2025 awarded Goodmans IP practice Impact Case of the Year for Steelhead LNG v Arc Resources (2024 FCA 67). Andrew Brodkin was also awarded Canada Practitioner of the Year - Patent Disputes for the second year in a row.​
​
Goodmans IP practice won multiple awards at the Managing IP Awards Americas 2024 including, Canada Firm of the Year - Patent Disputes and Impact Case of the Year - AbbVie v JAMP Pharma (2023 FC 1520). Andrew Brodkin was also awarded Canada Practitioner of the Year - Patent Disputes.
​
IP Stars 2025, 2024 and 2023 ranks Goodmans as “Tier 1” for Patent Disputes. Andrew Brodkin, Harry Radomski, Jordan Scopa and Ben Hackett are recognized as “Patent Stars” 2025, and Amalia Berg is recognized as “Trade Mark Star” and among the Top 250 Women in IP 2025.
IP Stars 2024 also recognized Jenene Roberts and Jaclyn Tilak as “Rising Stars”.
​Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000 has ranked Goodmans in “Gold” (highest ranking) tier for patent litigation since 2017.​
​
IAM Patent 1000 2025 names 6 IP lawyers in the guide for their world-class patent expertise:​​
-
Andrew Brodkin praised as “the foremost patent litigator in Canada”
-
​Harry Radomski recognized by clients as “an outstanding litigator and adviser to businesses, and an encyclopaedia when it comes to patent-related matters”
-
Jordan Scopa commended as “one of the top young patent litigators in Canada” and “a fierce advocate for his clients”
-
Ben Hackett acclaimed in the guide for his “tremendous expertise in patent dispute resolution”
-
Jenene Roberts endorsed as a “hardworking and shrewd patent litigator”
-
Sandon Shogilev recognized in the guide for his “practical advice through well-crafted strategies”
​​​
IAM Patent has honoured Andrew Brodkin and Harry Radomski as Global Leaders in Patent Law since 2022 to 2025, as well as Jordan Scopa in 2025.
.png){kind=small}
Lexology awarded Goodmans Leading IP Law Firm – IP Patents at the Lexology Awards: North America 2024.
The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory
​
The 2025 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory ranks Goodmans as the highest ranking, “Most Frequently Recommended”, in Litigation - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property, and recognizes 7 Goodmans lawyers, including Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Ben Hackett, Harry Radomski, Jenene Roberts, Jerry Topolski and Jordan Scopa.
The 2024 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory ranks Goodmans as the highest ranking, “Most Frequently Recommended”, in Litigation - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property, and recognizes 8 Goodmans lawyers, including Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Ben Hackett, Daniel Cappe, Harry Radomski, Jenene Roberts, Jerry Topolski and Jordan Scopa.​
Lexpert 500
​
The Lexpert 500 Lexpert's Leading 500 Cross-Border Lawyers: A Guide to Doing Business in Canada has recognized Andrew Brodkin and Harry Radomski as leaders in both IP and IP Litigation for more than 15 years.​
​
The Lexpert Special Edition - Litigation 2024 recognized ten Goodmans lawyers in the area of Litigation: Andrew Brodkin, David Conklin, Ben Hackett, Tamryn Jacobson, Peter Kolla, Alan Mark, Harry Radomski, Julie Rosenthal, David Rosner and Jordan Scopa.
Lexpert Special Edition
​
Lexpert Special Edition: Health Sciences 2025 recognized 8 Goodmans lawyers in the areas of Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Health, Litigation - Intellectual Property, Medical Negligence, and related practices and industries: Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Daniel Cappe, Ben Hackett, Harry Radomski, Jenene Roberts, Jordan Scopa and Jerry Topolski.
Lexpert Special Edition: Technology 2025 recognized 15 Goodmans lawyers in the areas of Intellectual Property, Litigation - Intellectual Property, among others: Amalia Berg, Jessica Bishop, Andrew Brodkin, David Coll-Black, Jamie Firsten, Allan Goodman, Ben Hackett, Michael Koch, Monique McAlister, Michael Partridge, Harry Radomski, Jenene Roberts, Peter Ruby, Jordan Scopa and Jerry Topolski.
Lexpert Special Edition: Litigation 2024 recognized ten Goodmans lawyers in the area of Litigation: Andrew Brodkin, David Conklin, Ben Hackett, Tamryn Jacobson, Peter Kolla, Alan Mark, Harry Radomski, Julie Rosenthal, David Rosner and Jordan Scopa.
.png){kind=small}
​​Best Lawyers 2025 recognized Andrew Brodkin as "Lawyer of the Year" for Intellectual Property Law.
Best Lawyers 2024 recognized Harry Radomski as "Lawyer of the Year" for Intellectual Property Law.
Best Lawyers in Canada 2025 ranked 13 Goodmans lawyers in intellectual property including: Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Ben Hackett, Daniel Cohen, David Lederman, Harry Radomski, Jaclyn Tilak, Jenene Roberts, Jerry Topolski, Jordan Scopa, Nando De Luca, Peter Ruby and Sandon Shogilev.
.png){kind=small}
Lexology Awards
​
Lexology awarded Goodmans Leading IP Law Firm – IP Patents at the Lexology Awards: North America 2024.
​​
​
Lexology Index
​​
Lexology Index 2024 (formerly Who's Who Legal) recommended 7 Goodmans lawyers for their work in Life Sciences, Patents and Trademarks including, Amalia Berg, Andrew Brodkin, Ben Hackett, Harry Radomski, Jordan Scopa, Sandon Shogilev and Jerry Topolski.
-
Andrew Brodkin and Harry Radomski are named “Global Elite Thought Leader” for their work in IP – Patents and Life Sciences - Patent Litigation, and Jordan Scopa is named “Thought Leader” in Healthcare & Life Sciences - Patent Litigation.
