×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔
no photo

Naomi Metcalfe

Not yet reviewed

130 Adelaide St W, Suite 2600, Toronto, ON M5H 3P5

Intellectual Property

About Naomi Metcalfe

Naomi Metcalfe is a lawyer practicing intellectual property. Naomi received a BScH degree from Queen's University in 2011, and has been licensed for 11 years. Naomi practices at Lenczner Slaght in Toronto, ON.

Naomi Metcalfe (Toronto, Ontario)

Reviews for Naomi

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Attorney
    Firm Name
    Lenczner Slaght
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Cases: Janssen Inc v Apotex Inc
    Counsel to Janssen in proceedings pursuant to the PM(NOC) Regulations relating to Prezista (darunavir), an antiretroviral medication.
    Andrew Skodyn, Melanie Baird, Veronica C. Tsou & Naomi Metcalfe January 8, 2018
    Purdue Canada v Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc.
    Counsel to Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. against Purdue Pharma in an application under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, as well as a patent infringement action, involving the medicine XTAMPZA ER (a tamper-resistant oxycodone product used in pain management).
    James S.S. Holtom, Andrew Skodyn, Sana Halwani, Melanie Baird, Laurel D. Hogg & Naomi Metcalfe June 28, 2017
    Valeant Canada LP v Generic Partners Canada Inc.
    Counsel to Valeant in proceedings pursuant to the PM(NOC) Regulations relating to Glumetza (metformin), a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes.
    Andrew Skodyn, Melanie Baird, Sana Halwani & Naomi Metcalfe June 9, 2017
    Smart Cloud Inc v International Business Machines Corporation
    Counsel for IBM in a passing off action relating to IBM's cloud computing services
    technologies.
    Andrew Skodyn, Melanie Baird, Laurel D. Hogg & Naomi Metcalfe November 24, 2016
    ZeptoMetrix Corporation v Microbix Biosystems Inc
    Counsel to the defendant in a patent action related to nucleic acid amplification controls. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
    Naomi Metcalfe February 1, 2015
    Arctic Cat v Bombardier Recreational Products Inc
    Counsel for Arctic Cat in a patent trial. The patent at issue concerned two-stroke engines with exhaust temperature-controlled ignition timing. (Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght)
    Naomi Metcalfe January 1, 2015

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2015, Ontario
    Memberships

    Associations

    • Canadian Bar Association

    • Ontario Bar Association

    • Intellectual Property Institute of Canada

    • Intellectual Property Owners Association - Member

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of Western Ontario
    Class of 2014
    JD
    Other Education
    Queen's University
    Class of 2011
    BScH
    Life Sciences, Research Option

Email Naomi Metcalfe

Case type is required.
A valid zip code is required.
A valid city is required.
State is required.
Country is required.
Outside the US or Canada?
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

Contact Information

First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
City:
State:
Country:
Case Description:
Contact Information
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Phone Number:
Return to Profile
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions