Home » 2012 » August » 18

Under Scrutiny: Reverse Payment Agreements

A Reverse Payment Agreement (RPA) is an interesting point of interface between competition law and intellectual property law. One crucial issue in this regard is whether RPAs can trigger antitrust provisions. This issue had been dealt with previously here.

Monsanto v Schmeiser Does Not Indicate SCC Departure From Existing Precedents: But-For Causation Still Required for Contributory Infringement

In Nycomed Canada Inc. v Teva Canada Limited 2012 FCA 195 (Noël, JA), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) considered whether the Federal Court erred in rejecting Nycomed’s counterclaim for induced infringement. The FCA upheld the lower court’s decision affirming that but-for causation must be established in order to successfully claim contributory infringement.