As previously reported by the Goodmans IP Team, earlier this year, in thorough and comprehensive reasons, Justice Southcott of the Federal Court invalidated Amgen's key patent relating to Neupogen® on the basis of obviousness in Amgen v. Pfizer, 2020 FC 522.
On appeal, Amgen submitted that the Federal Court committed a reviewable error in applying the test for obviousness, namely, that it used the wrong legal standard as it applied the various factors in the test for obviousness.
Last week, the Federal Court of Appeal ( 2020 FCA 188 ) dismissed Amgen's appeal from the bench and provided short accompanying reasons.
The Federal Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the Federal Court erred and noted " that the obviousness test is flexible and must be applied contextually to the facts and circumstances of each claim ". The Federal Court of Appeal commended Justice Southcott's reasons as being "worthy of recognition for their attention to detail, their careful analysis of the rival experts and the thorough analysis throughout".
The Federal Court of Appeal further concluded that, if it were to apply the test for obviousness to the evidence, as if it were a court of first-instance, it would reach the same result as the Federal Court.
Authors: Jordan Scopa and Jaclyn Tilak
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@hush52
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
CanLII and Caseway Reportedly Settle AI Copyright Dispute
As recently reported by Canadian Lawyer Magazine, CanLII has settled its copyright infringement action against AI-powered legal assistant, Caseway AI. The terms of the settlement are confidential, but… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Cut, Sew, but Don’t Sell: South Korea’s Supreme Court Clarifies Trademark Limits
As recently reported by Korea JoongAng Daily, South Korea’s Supreme Court (second division) has issued its first decision regarding whether “upcycling” or customizing branded luxury goods can amount… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its…