Jordan Scopa

Jordan’s representative work includes:

• Sandoz Canada v. Janssen, 2023 FCA 221 – retained as appellate counsel after an unsuccessful challenge to the validity of a patent related to a pulmonary arterial hypertension medication
• Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2023 FCA 125 – successful resistance to an appeal from a trial decision invalidating a patent relating to the dose of an ED medication, on the basis of obviousness
• Pharmascience v. Teva Canada Innovation, 2022 FCA 207 – acted as appellate counsel on issues relating to the impact of settlement overtures to costs awards
• Nova Chemicals v. Dow Chemical, 2022 SCC 43 – acted as counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, on the leading case relating to the accounting of profits remedy for patent infringement (and the role of non-infringing options)
• AbbVie Corporation v. JAMP Pharma Corporation, 2022 FC 1209 – successful representation of JAMP in a judicial review application resulting in JAMP retaining its Notice of Compliance for its adalimumab product
• GEMAK Trust v. Jempak Corporation, 2022 FCA 141 – retained as appellate counsel, resulting in a successful appeal overturning a Judgment dismissing an action for patent infringement
• Pharmascience v. Teva Canada Innovation, 2022 FCA 2 – acted as appellate counsel on issues relating to the requirement for “proper disclosure” of the factual basis and sound line of reasoning supporting a sound prediction of utility
• Teva Canada Innovation v. Pharmascience, 2020 FC 1158 – successful challenge to the validity of a patent related to a multiple sclerosis medication, on the basis of obviousness
• Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2020 FC 816 – successful challenge to the validity and infringement of a patent relating to the dose of an ED medication, on the bases of anticipation and obviousness
• Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2020 FC 814 – successful challenge to the validity and infringement of a patent relating to the process to make the active ingredient in an ED medication, on the bases of anticipation and obviousness
• Evolution Technologies v. Human Care Canada, 2019 FCA 209 – successful appeal of a trial judgment enjoining the sale of a major mobility-aid product and awarding financial remedies on account of patent infringement
• Evolution Technologies v. Human Care Canada, 2019 FCA 11 – successful motion to stay a trial judgment enjoining the sale of a major mobility-aid product and awarding financial remedies, pending the outcome of an appeal
• Apotex v. Eli Lilly, 2018 FCA 217 – successful appeal of a trial award of $75 million in pre-judgment interest as damages for patent infringement
• Amgen Canada v. Apotex, 2015 FC 1261 – successful challenge to the validity of a patent relating to a biologic medication, on the basis of obviousness
• Canada (National Revenue) v. Amdocs Canadian Managed Services, 2015 FC 1234 – successful opposition to an application for a compliance order pursuant to section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act
• Eli Lilly Canada v. Apotex, 2015 FC 1016 - successful challenge to the validity and infringement of a patent relating to the formulation of an ED medication, on the basis of obviousness
• Apotex v. Merck & Co., 2015 FCA 171 – successful in the adoption of the legal relevance of non-infringing alternatives in the assessment of damages for patent infringement
• Alcon Canada v. Apotex, 2014 FC 791 - successful challenge to the validity of a patent relating to the formulation of a glaucoma medication, on the basis of obviousness
• Alcon Canada v. Apotex, 2014 FC 699 - successful challenge to the validity of a patent relating to a glaucoma medication, on the bases of anticipation and obviousness
• Apotex v. Sanofi-Aventis Canada, 2012 FC 553 and Teva Canada v. Sanofi-Aventis Canada, 2012 FC 551 and 2012 FC 552 – claims for damages pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (NOC) Regulations by multiple generic pharmaceutical companies relating to an anti-hypertensive medication