Canadian Lawyer InHouse

45 CANADIANLAWYERMAG.COM/INHOUSE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 were at the forefront in pushing the enve- lope on new arguments. Goodmans at that time was very much a sink-or-swim kind of place. That didn't work for everybody, but it worked for me." When Mehes wished to start a family, however, she realized her hours at Good- mans were "not consistent with my being the kind of parent I wanted to be." She in- terviewed at Teva Canada, which had ac- quired Novopharm a few years earlier. In 2005, she became the fi rst lawyer at Teva Novopharm, taking charge of IP and litiga- tion management. "As the only in-house lawyer, I went from being a pharmaceutical patent lawyer to be- coming a generalist very quickly." (By the time she left Teva Canada in 2013, she had an in-house team of seven lawyers. She also forged relationships with external counsel whom the company continues to draw upon today at Aitken Klee LLP and Bennett Jones LLP.) Mehes quickly grew to like the "intersec- tion of law and business." She assisted in taking an unprofi table company with a weak drug pipeline and building an industry- leading pipeline of more than 65 products. She successfully litigated several of the larg- est exclusive generic launches in Canadian history (e.g., generic versions of Wyeth's anti-depressant Effexor and Eli Lilly's anti- psychotic Zyprexa). During these years, Teva Canada became more aggressive in challenging the patents of brand-name pharmaceuticals. In particu- lar, it tried to establish "a legitimate winna- ble position" against Pfi zer Canada's patent for Viagra. "We were the fi rst jurisdiction in the world where the Viagra patent was challenged," she says. The patent challenge did not require the approval of either Teva's Israeli head offi ce or the U.S. headquarters, says Mehes. "It would today, but at that time we had incred- ible autonomy in Canada." After losing at trial, we had a lot of discussion with outside counsel David Aitken [then at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP] about whether to appeal." After a second setback at appellate court, "seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was not an obvious decision at the time," she says. "Once we made the decision to proceed, it was about trying to frame the argument as clearly and simply as possible." The Teva legal team argued that Pfi zer's patent was invalid because, as Mehes colourfully contended, it attempted to "hide a leaf in a forest." The effective ingredient was buried among a slew of chemical compounds listed in the patent. This, thereby, breached the inherent bargain of patents: "having to disclose to the public what your invention is in exchange for a time-limited monopoly." Says Mehes, "David Aitken, Marcus Klee and I spent several weeks in Ottawa in a room together developing every word of that argument. There was no argument that was more over-thought, over-analyzed from every direction. We wanted to keep the argument simple, we didn't want to get into the technicalities of patent law. We left the court that day feeling very good. We had a big lunch celebration in Ottawa." The high fi ves were vindicated when the SCC issued its ruling in Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfi zer Canada Inc. in November 2012. In a landmark ruling on patent disclosure, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Pfi zer patent for Viagra was "invalid." The way was clear for Teva Canada to manufacture a generic version of the little blue pill. "It was one of the highlights of my career," recalls Mehes. In mid-2013, she was promoted and relocated to North Wales, Penn., a suburb of Philadelphia, to lead the legal team of the company's largest business unit, North America Generics. Mehes oversees seven lawyers (including Benjamin Gray, the current GC for Teva Canada) and reports to David Stark, the GC for Global Markets. Almost two years ago, the then-CEO, Americas Generics named Mehes as inter- im leader (for 10 months) of the U.S. New Product & Portfolio organization with re- sponsibility for the generic medicines pipe- line and new product launches. "I really had the opportunity to bridge the legal side and the business side," she says. "As I look to the future, I think, as do many in-house counsel, about what is the right way to transition into a business role down the road. If I look back at the last 10 years at what I've done, both in Canada and the U.S, it's drive value creation. For me, that is front and centre in what I do every day." IH As I look to the future, I think, as do many in-house counsel, about what is the right way to transition into a business role down the road. If I look back at the last 10 years at what I've done, both in Canada and the U.S., it's drive value creation. For me, that is front and centre in what I do every day. ILDIKO MEHES, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. SECOND SNAPSHOT P r o f e s s i o n a l P r o f i l e '' T H E L A W Y E R Ildiko Mehes T H E C O M P A N Y Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. • Senior vice president & general counsel, North America Generics, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (since July 2015) • Vice president & general counsel, North America Generics, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (2013-15) • Vice president & General Counsel, Teva Canada (2009-13) • General counsel, Teva Canada (2008-09) • Law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School (2000) ''

• Cover