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

The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Gift this article