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

Cookies Settings

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

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article