Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1998), 161 DLR (4th) 1, [1998] 2 SCR 129 -- summary under Tax Avoidance

By services, 28 November, 2015

In discussing E.I. De Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 227 U.S.P.Q. 223 (1985), Iacobucci J. stated (at p. 34) that in that case:

"the unlicensed party actually manufactured the licensed article allegedly as the agent of the licensee, only then to 'purchase' the article from the licensee immediately upon its manufacture. This arrangement was characterized by the Delaware Supreme Court as a sham, and rightfully so. The only factor which distinguished it from an overt situation of an unlicensed party's manufacturing a patented article strictly for its own benefit was a series of paper transactions carried out between a subsidiary corporation and its parent for the purpose of obscuring the true character of the arrangement."

Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
333210
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em>Eli Lilly &amp; Co. v. Novopharm Ltd.</em></strong> (1998), 161 DLR (4th) 1, [1998] 2 SCR 129",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}