Source: http://www.goodmans.ca/People/Jordan_D__Scopa/?showRelated=docs
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:08:30+00:00

Document:
Jordan Scopa is a partner in the Litigation Group at Goodmans. He practises commercial litigation, with an emphasis on intellectual property disputes. He also advises clients regarding the licensing of intellectual property and technology.
Jordan has been counsel on a number of significant cases involving patent validity and infringement. He has also been counsel on the leading cases involving the assessment and quantification of damages, both for patent infringement and pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (NOC) Regulations. He appears regularly before the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.
Evolution Technologies v. Human Care Canada, 2019 FCA 11 – successful motion to stay a trial judgment enjoining the sale of a major 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.
Jordan is also a lecturer in the Intellectual Property in Health Law course in the Professional LLM program at Osgoode Hall Law School.
Before joining Goodmans in 2012, Jordan practised intellectual property litigation and licensing at a leading intellectual property boutique firm.
During his undergraduate studies, Jordan completed a two-year laboratory study relating to Huntington’s disease at Massachusetts General Hospital.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.