patent laws, not their individual patent relevant question for the Parties’ rules’. Thus, ‘The Tribunal is, therefore, whether Canadian patent law overall has a different effect from that of its trading the legal clinics conclude that functional comparison of partners.’ Fourth, ‘A Canadian, American, and Mexican patent law reveals that utility in Canadian law is functionally equivalent to (a) the United States requirements of the utility branch of enablement, and (b) the Mexican requirements that an invention be capable of industrial application, have an inventive step, and be sufficiently described.’ Professor Richard Gold and Michael Shortt have provided a comprehensive analysis of the patent issues at stake in the controversy. In a commentary, Professor Michael Geist from the University of Ottawa considers the controversy over the Eli Lilly dispute, Investor-State Dispute Settlement Rules, and the Canada-EU Trade Agreement. He concluded that may be in interest to go back ‘it everyone’s to the drawing board on CETA by eliminating ISDS altogether.’ In June 2013, the United States-based brand name pharmaceutical drug company Eli Lilly deployed an investor clause under the to challenge North American Free Trade Agreement drug patent laws. Eli Lilly and Company is alleging that the invalidation of its Canada’s Strattera and Zyprexa pharmaceutical patents under Canadian patent law is inconsistent with commitments under the Eli Lilly alleged: North American Free Trade Agreement. Canada’s Canada, through its own actions and through the actions of the Canadian courts, is responsible for measures inconsistent with its commitments under NAFTA Chapter Eleven, including without limitation: (1) the Judge-made law on utility according to which the Canadian (the ‘promise doctrine’) Courts have invalidated the Strattera and Zyprexa Patents; (2) the failure of the Government of Canada
Parties’ patent laws, not their individual patent rules’. Thus, ‘The relevant question for the Tribunal is, therefore, whether Canadian patent law overall has a different effect from that of its trading partners.’ Fourth, the legal clinics conclude that ‘A functional comparison of Canadian, American, and Mexican patent law reveals that utility in Canadian law is functionally equivalent to (a) the United States requirements of the utility branch of enablement, and (b) the Mexican requirements that an invention be capable of industrial application, have an inventive step, and be sufficiently described.’ Professor Richard Gold and Michael Shortt have provided a comprehensive analysis of the patent issues at stake in the controversy. In a commentary, Professor Michael Geist from the University of Ottawa considers the controversy over the Eli Lilly dispute, Investor-State Dispute Settlement Rules, and the Canada-EU Trade Agreement. He concluded that ‘it may be in everyone’s interest to go back to the drawing board on CETA by eliminating ISDS altogether.’ In June 2013, the United States-based brand name pharmaceutical drug company Eli Lilly deployed an investor clause under the North American Free Trade Agreement to challenge Canada’s drug patent laws. Eli Lilly and Company is alleging that the invalidation of its Strattera and Zyprexa pharmaceutical patents under Canadian patent law is inconsistent with Canada’s commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Eli Lilly alleged: Canada, through its own actions and through the actions of the Canadian courts, is responsible for measures inconsistent with its commitments under NAFTA Chapter Eleven, including without limitation: (1) the Judge-made law on utility (the ‘promise doctrine’) according to which the Canadian Courts have invalidated the Strattera and Zyprexa Patents; (2) the failure of the Government of Canada
sub145-intellectual-property.docx