Federal Court finds that some amendments to Patented Medicines Regulations are ultra vires
In 2020 FC 725, the Federal Court released its decision in an application for judicial review regarding recent amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations under the Patent Act, which are scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2021.
The Applicants sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Regulations Amending the Patented Medicines Regulations (Additional Factors and Information Reporting Requirements) (the “Amendments”) are invalid because they are ultra vires the Patent Act.
The Impugned Amendments at issue were:
- Section 4 of the Amendments, which requires the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board to consider three new mandatory economic factors and requires patentees to report related information;
- Section 6 and the schedule to the Amendments, which replace the price comparator countries listed in the schedule to the Regulations; and
- Subsection 3(4) of the Amendments, which requires patentees to alter the way that price is calculated and reported to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (such that the "actual price" obtained by the patentee be used, "taking into account any adjustments that are made by the patentee or any party that directly or indirectly purchases the medicine or reimburses for the purchase of the medicine and any reduction given to any party in the form of free goods, free services, gifts or any other benefit of a like nature").
The Court found that the Impugned Amendments in sections 4 and 6, and the schedule to the Amendments are intra vires the Patent Act .
However, the Court found that the Impugned Amendment in subsection 3(4) of the Amendments is ultra vires the Patent Act and thus is invalid and of no force and effect. In light of this finding, subsection 4(4) of the existing Patented Medicines Regulations will continue to operate as it currently reads.
Authors: Jordan Scopa and Jaclyn Tilak
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@adamsky1973
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
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… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…