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 2025

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

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article