전문가

쉘던 해밀턴
Sheldon Hamilton

파트너
토론토

변호사, 변리사

 

연락처
전화: 416.593.5514
팩스: 416.591.1690
다운로드 v-카드

변호사 자격 취득
1992년 온타리오주

학력 및 자격
  • 1987년 University of Toronto B.A.Sc.(화학공학)
  • 1990년 University of Toronto Law School LL.B.
  • 1995년 변리사 (상표 부문)
  • 1996년 변리사 (특허 부문)
 

셀던 해밀턴 변호사는 캐나다에서 손꼽히는 특허 소송 변호사 중 한 명으로서, 20년 가까이 상업적으로 중요한 제품과 관련하여 세계에서 가장 혁신적인 다수의 기업을 대변해왔습니다. 해밀턴 변호사는 특히 의약품 소송 분야의 경험이 풍부하며, 캐나다 대법원, 캐나다 연방 항소법원, 캐나다 연방 법원, 그리고 온타리오 고등법원에서 Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (복제의약품 인허가 규제) 관련 사건을 포함하는 다양한 소송을 진행하며 고객을 대변해 왔습니다. 또한, 해밀턴 변호사는 특허 침해, 특허 유효성 및 손해 배상과 관련한 문제들을 실무적으로 다루어 본 경험이 풍부합니다.

해밀턴 변호사는 IAM Patent Litigation 250 — The World's Leading Patent Litigators, IAM Life Sciences 250 – The World’s Leading Life Sciences Patent Litigators, Benchmark Canada, Chambers Global, 및 The Best Lawyers in Canada등 주요한 국내 및 국제 평가와 설문조사에서 그 실력을 인정받고 있습니다.

해밀턴 변호사는 지적재산권과 관련된 문제에 대해 기고와 강연을 하며, 수많은 법률 및 과학 전문 기관의 위원으로서 활동하고 있습니다.

해밀턴 변호사는 그의 여가 동안 보스턴 (2회), 뉴욕, 시카고 그리고 프라하 등에서18번의 마라톤을 완주한 열렬한 마라톤 주자입니다.


평가 및 수상

  • 2015년 Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences (생명과학) 부문 등재
  • 창간 기념판 Managing Intellectual Property’s 2014 IP Stars Handbook: Patents의 'IP Star'로 선정
  • 2013년 이래 매년 Who's Who Legal: Canada의 특허 부문에 등재
  • 2013년 발간이래 매년 LMG Life Sciences 의 지적재산권 분야 'Life Science Star' 로 선정   
  • 2012년 발간이래 매년 Benchmark Canada의 ''Local Litigation Star'로 선정 (지적재산권 분야)
  • 2012년 이래 The Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory 의 지적재산권 분야와 2013년 이래 지적재산권 관련 소송분야에 등재
  • Who's Who Legal: Patents 로 선정
  • 2012년 발간이래 매년 IAM Patent 1000The World's Leading Patent Practitioners 소송분야에 등재
  • IAM Patent Litigation 250 — The World's Leading Patent Litigators 로 선정
  • IAM Life Sciences 250 – The World’s Leading Life Sciences Patent Litigators 2010으로 선정
  • Chambers Global – The World’s Leading Lawyers for Business, 2010-2011 로 선정 (지적재산권 소송 분야)
  • The Best Lawyers in Canada지적재산권 분야 등재
업무분야
소송
제약
생명 과학
의약품 규제 및 인허가 관련 제반 사항

 
언어
영어
 

사건 담당 경력

복제 의약품 인허가 규제 (Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations) 관련 소송

AstraZeneca Canada Inc et al v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC et al, 2011 FC 1023 — Court granted Order of prohibition rejecting generic's arguments of inutility and obviousness.

sanofi-aventis Canada Inc v Pharmascience Inc, 2008 FC 782 — Court granted Order of prohibition following earlier finding that the generic was estopped from litigating the validity of the patent.

sanofi-aventis Canada Inc v Pharmascience Inc, 2007 FC 1057 — Court applied issue estoppel to preclude generic from litigating a second allegation of invalidity where the generic had initially failed on an allegation of invalidity and another generic had subsequently succeeded.

sanofi-aventis Inc v Laboratoire Riva Inc, 2007 FC 532 — Court would have found allegation of invalidity regarding compound patent not justified but ruled that it was bound by decision in another case that the same allegation was justified.

Aventis Pharma Inc v Pharmascience Inc, 2005 FC 340 — Allegation of invalidity not justified for compound patent.

AB Hassle v Apotex Inc, 2005 FC 234 — Court applied issue estoppel to preclude generic from relitigating allegation of non-infringement and litigating allegation of invalidity that could have been raised in an earlier proceeding.

Astrazeneca AB v Apotex Inc and AB Hassle v Apotex Inc 2004 FC 761, 2004 FC 762 — Court permitted filing of further evidence related to testing of samples produced by generic.

AB Hassle v Apotex Inc, 2003 FCT 771 — Allegation of invalidity of salt patent not justified.

AB Hassle v Apotex Inc, 2002 FCT 931 — Allegation of non-infringement of formulation patents not justified.

Hassle v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), T-366-98 — Allegation of non-infringement of formulation patent not justified.

AB Hassle v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), T-1712-95 — Allegation of non-infringement of compound patent not justified on basis of non-infringing process; generic process is obvious chemical equivalent of patented process. Court prohibits Minister from issuing notice of compliance.

특허 침해 및 특허 무효 소송

sanofi-aventis Canada Inc v Apotex Inc; sanofi-aventis Canada Inc v Novopharm Inc, 2009 FC 676 — Actions for infringement and validity of compound patent and reference for damages. Cases proceeded to trial on all issues, including remedy, in two years.

Merck & Co. Inc v Apotex Inc, 2006 FC 524 — Compound patent valid and infringed; generic enjoined from further sale pending patent expiry and damages awarded to patentee and licensee.

Apotex Inc v Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., T-2870-96 — Sustained release formulation patent.

행정 소송 /사법심사 (Judicial Review)

AB Hassle v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare)AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2004 FC 377, 2004 FC 378 — Court granted motion allowing use of confidential information from one proceeding in a judicial review application.

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), T-2309-98 — Court quashed notice of compliance issued to generic.

항소

Apotex Inc v sanofi-aventis Inc, 2008 FCA 394 — Court of Appeal upheld Trial Judge’s decision not to recuse herself from trial on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias arising from an earlier decision by the same Judge.

Pharmascience Inc v sanofi-aventis Canada Inc, 2008 FCA 213 — Court of Appeal confirmed the application of issue estoppel where generic had failed on one allegation of invalidity and attempted to litigate a second allegation of invalidity on the basis of another generic's intervening success. The Court refused to allow the generic to relitigate.

Apotex Inc v Merck & Co., 2006 FCA 323 — Court of Appeal affirmed findings of infringement and validity of compound patent.

Pharmascience Inc v sanofi-aventis Canada Inc, 2006 FCA 210 — Court of Appeal dismissed motion by generic to have appeal dismissed as abuse of process.

Apotex Inc v AstraZeneca Canada Inc and Apotex Inc v AB Hassle, 2004 FCA 226, 2004 FCA 227 — Court dismissed appeal from variation of protective Order allowing use of evidence from one proceeding in another proceeding.

Apotex Inc v AB Hassle, 2004 FCA 255 — Court of Appeal upheld trial decision permitting further evidence related to testing of samples provided by the generic.

Apotex Inc v AB Hassle, 2003 FCA 87 — Court of Appeal declined to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

Rhoxalpharma Inc v AB Hassle, 2002 FCA 147 — Court of Appeal affirmed decision that allegation of non-infringement regarding formulation patent was not justified.

기타

Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc, 2008 FC 321 — Court quashed subpoenas issued at request of generic to patent attorneys involved in settlement of prior proceeding.

sanofi-aventis Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2008 FC 320 — Court dismissed in part motion by generic for relief from the implied undertaking not to use discovery documents from one proceeding for purposes of another proceeding.

Apotex Inc v Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., T-2870-96 — Court dismissed motion by generic for summary judgment related to sustained release formulation patent.

소속

  • Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (캐나다 지적재산권 협회) Fellow 회원
  • Member, International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI); Amicus Brief Committee (Q. 221) 회원
  • The Advocates' Society 정회원 및 디렉터
  • Canadian Bar Association (캐나다 변호사 협회) 회원


강연

  • “Working With Experts after Moore v. Getahun: Retainers, Communications and report Development,” The Advocates' Society, Toronto, 2015년 5월
  • “Intellectual Property in Pharmaceuticals and Biotech Industries” (moderator), China Intellectual Property & Innovation Summit 2015, Shanghai, China, 2015년 4월
  • “Cross-Border Litigation Strategies: Planning, Managing and Reacting to Patent Enforcement Proceedings in Concurrent Jurisdictions,” C5’s 7th Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation, 암스테르담, 2015년 3월
  • "Biotech patenting in Canada: The view from the Supreme Court," presented at the Technology and Intellectual Property (TIP) Conference 토론토 대학, 법학부, 2014년 3월
  • "Litigation Friendly Patents" (moderator), IPIC Annual Meeting, 할리팩스, 2014년 10월
  • "Analysis of the Ground breaking Case of Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v Myriad Genetics Inc., et al. and how it’s Aftermath Might Affect Your Patent Strategies in the US," C5's 6th Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation, 암스테르담, 2014년 1월
  • "Evaluating the Impact of the Supreme Court of Canada's Decision of Teva Canada v Pfizer on Patent Validity Challenges and Infringement Cases," 2012년 10월The Canadian Institute's 11th Annual Forum on Pharma Patents, 토론토
  • "Patent Damages in Canada: Who Owes What to Whom and When?" 2012년 10월IPIC Annual Meeting, 밴쿠버
  • "Navigating the potential minefield of pharmaceutical patents" (공동 저자: Colin B. Ingram), 2012년 9월 Benchmark Canada Cross-Border Litigation Forum, 뉴욕
  • 패널 토의: "Canada and the World," AIPLA Comparative Intellectual Property Law Symposium, 오타와, 2012년 4월
  • "Develop Strategies to Protect or Challenge Exclusivity In Patent Regime", The Canadian Institute's 10th Annual Forum on Pharma Patents, 토론토, 2011년10월
  • Co-chair, Insight Information’s 9th Conference on Drug Patents in Canada, 2010년 5월

주요 저서 및 논문

  • "A Bird's Eye View Of The Canadian Patent Landscape." (공동 저자: Daphne Lainson), Corporate Counsel IP Canada Report, 2013년 8월
  • "The disclosure bargain," The Patent Lawyer, 2013년 1월/2월
  • "Supreme Court of Canada: VIAGRA patent "void" for insufficient disclosure" (공동 저자: Colin Ingram과 Gunars A. Gaikis), IP Update — Canada, 2012년 11월 8일; Lexology, 2012년 11월 8일, Mondaq, 2012년 11월 9일; International Law Office Intellectual Property Newsletter, 2012년 12월 3일
  • "The Right Dose: Update on the Canadian Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations and Data Protection for Pharmaceuticals in Canada" (공동 저자: Steven Garland 와 Amelia Choi), Patent World, 2007년 10월
  • "The patent-regulatory regime in Canada" (공동 저자: Nancy Pei), Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst, 2012년 11월, Vol. 1, Issue 5