In the case of Apotex v. Eli Lilly dated March 30, 2023, the plaintiff, Apotex Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs, had brought a damages action against the defendants, collectively referred to as Eli Lilly. The dispute had revolved around delays that Apotex had faced in launching a generic drug named Apo-Atomoxetine, a counterpart to Eli Lilly's patented drug Strattera, which was used for attention deficit disorder treatment. The basis for the claim had rested on section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. This section had enabled a generic manufacturer to seek damages if the actions of a patent holder had caused delays in entering the market. These damages had been intended to reflect the losses sustained during the delay period, calculated within a hypothetical scenario where the delay hadn't occurred. However, the court had dismissed Apotex's claim, as the circumstances that triggered the claim had been deemed insufficient to warrant compensation under the Regulations. Consequently, the defendants hadn't been found liable. Moreover, even if the circumstances had warranted compensation, the court had ruled that Apotex hadn't incurred any damages, as it wouldn't have entered the market any earlier in the hypothetical scenario than it had actually done in reality. No specific information regarding a financial award had been provided in the case.