The explanation we were given is that they had gone to the international agreement, the trade-related intellectual property agreement, and tried to incorporate some of the elements from that into the Canadian law.
In our view, they actually didn't do that entirely correctly. But more fundamentally, the wording is quite different.
No one has ever suggested before the court, in challenging or not these opposition cases in regard to trade dress in pharmaceuticals, that Canadian law is in any way inconsistent with TRIPS. Our current law is consistent with TRIPS.
We believe, again, that the change they're suggesting would create uncertainty and actually do a disservice to the case law that's been pretty well formed now.