Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the utility requirement for a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturers Novopharm and Apotex to declare Glaxo Wellcome's patent for AZT, an AIDS-fighting drug, invalid.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the utility requirement for a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturers Novopharm and Apotex to declare Glaxo Wellcome's patent for AZT, an AIDS-fighting drug, invalid. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
Unanimous
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
docket
| |
citations
| |
history
| - Judgment against Apotex in the Federal Court of Appeal. (en)
|
ratio
| - The doctrine of sound prediction is a valid way of determining the utility of a patent. (en)
|
has abstract
| - Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the utility requirement for a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturers Novopharm and Apotex to declare Glaxo Wellcome's patent for AZT, an AIDS-fighting drug, invalid. (en)
|
case-name
| - Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd (en)
|
decided-date
| |
full-case-name
| - Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Ltd. v. Wellcome Foundation Limited, Glaxo Wellcome Inc., Interpharm Inc. and Allen Barry Shechtman (en)
|
heard-date
| |
ruling
| |
SCC
| |
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |