Canada: Pharmaceutical patents in Canada – regulatory changes

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: Pharmaceutical patents in Canada – regulatory changes

Following the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union, the Government of Canada has amended Canada's pharmaceutical drug linkage regulations, the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations), which link the drug regulatory approval system to the patent system. The PMNOC Regulations are comparable to the Hatch-Waxman Act in the United States.

In Canada, to gain authorisation for a new innovative drug, an innovator submits to Health Canada a New Drug Submission (NDS) setting out data establishing the safety and efficacy of the drug. Upon regulatory approval by Health Canada, a Notice of Compliance (NOC) is issued authorising the drug for sale. Relevant patents pertaining to the innovative drug are eligible to be listed on a public Patent Register and are entitled to protection under the PMNOC Regulations.

A generic manufacturer that files an Abbreviated New Drug Submission ("ANDS") with Health Canada seeking approval of a generic version of an innovative drug must successfully address each relevant patent listed on the Patent Register before an NOC will be granted for the generic version. The generic manufacturer may, for example, serve a Notice of Allegation (NOA) alleging non-infringement and/or invalidity of listed patents, triggering proceedings under the PMNOC Regulations.

The amended PMNOC Regulations apply to all submissions for which an NOA is served on or after September 21 2017. At a high level, the previously existing summary proceedings have now been replaced by a full right of action, with accompanying procedural guarantees and discovery obligations, ending dual litigation. The amendments alter the regime that has governed pharmaceutical patent litigation in Canada for nearly 25 years.

The PMNOC Regulations previously provided a summary procedure in which allegations of patent infringement and invalidity could be decided. Parties, however, remained free to challenge or assert the same patent as between the same parties and for the same drug in a separate action under the Canadian Patent Act. Dual litigation was thus possible for the same patent and drug, leading to potentially inconsistent results. The summary proceedings, heard on a written record, have now been replaced with a full right of action involving up-front disclosure and discovery, and concluding in a trial.

Under the amended PMNOC Regulations, the only opportunity for an innovator to sue on patents addressed in an NOA is within 45 days of receipt of the NOA. No other action may be brought for infringement of any patent that is the subject of the NOA, unless the innovator did not have a reasonable basis for bringing the action at the time. There is also now the ability for an innovator to sue on patents beyond those listed on the Patent Register, on the basis of information received in the NOA.

Additional notable developments in the pharmaceutical patent-regulatory interface flowing from CETA include the introduction of Certificates of Supplementary Protection (CSPs), which have been implemented to compensate innovators for lost patent term due to regulatory delays.

Tamara O’Connell


Smart & Biggar/ Fetherstonhaugh55 Metcalfe Street Suite 900PO Box 2999 Station DOttawa ON  K1P 5Y6Tel: 613 232 2486Fax: 613 232 8440 ottawa@smart-biggar.cawww.smart-biggar.ca

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
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
Gift this article