Canada: Tribunal dismisses Eli Lilly’s NAFTA challenge

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Canada: Tribunal dismisses Eli Lilly’s NAFTA challenge

Following the invalidation of its patents for Strattera (atomoxetine) and Zyprexa (olanzapine), Eli Lilly and Company submitted claims to international arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). On March 1, 2017, the Tribunal issued its final award dismissing Eli Lilly's claims.

Eli Lilly's patents were invalidated on the basis of the so-called "promise of the patent" doctrine; namely, that the claims of the patent failed to deliver utility promised by statements in the specification. Eli Lilly argued that Canadian courts had dramatically changed the application of the utility requirement through a series of cases that adopted the promise doctrine and that the retroactive application of this doctrine to Eli Lilly's patents resulted in a breach of Canada's obligations under NAFTA.

The Tribunal, however, found that Canada's utility requirement underwent incremental and evolutionary changes between the grant of the patents and their subsequent invalidation. Moreover, it found that the promise standard has a "strong foundation" in earlier jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, the Tribunal found that the doctrine was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In summary, the government of Canada was not found to have violated its obligations under NAFTA.

The NAFTA decision further supports the application of the heightened utility requirement that may arise under Canadian law through application of the promise doctrine. Those interested in the issue, however, eagerly await a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc. In that case, which was heard in November 2016, the promise doctrine was directly before the Supreme Court. A decision, which may bring some clarity on the issue, is expected soon.

Neil Padgett

Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh

55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900

PO Box 2999 Station D

Ottawa ON  K1P 5Y6

Tel: 613 232 2486

Fax: 613 232 8440 

ottawa@smart-biggar.ca

www.smart-biggar.ca

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article