Apotex Inc. v. Astrazeneca Canada Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Astrazeneca Canada Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2014-05-28
Neutral citation
2014 FCA 142
File numbers
A-298-13
Decision Content
Date: 20140528
Docket: A-298-13
Citation: 2014 FCA 142
CORAM:
SHARLOW J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
MAINVILLE J.A.
BETWEEN:
APOTEX INC.
Appellant
and
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC. AND AKTIEBOLAGET HÄSSLE
Respondents
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2014.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2014.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
Date: 20140528
Docket: A-298-13
Citation: 2014 FCA 142
CORAM:
SHARLOW J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
MAINVILLE J.A.
Docket: A-298-13
BETWEEN:
APOTEX INC.
Appellant
and
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC. AND AKTIEBOLAGET HASSLE
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 28, 2014).
GAUTHIER J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from the order of Kane J. of the Federal Court (2013 FC 926) upholding the order of Prothonotary Aronovitch granting leave to Astrazeneca to add certain paragraphs to their Third Amended Statement of Claim in their patent infringement action (file T-1409-04). These amendments relate to the Astrazeneca’s standing and to damages sought by Astrazeneca in respect of the compensation it will have to pay under the section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 proceeding instituted by Apotex (file T-2300-05).
[2] The judge was satisfied that the prothonotary had not erred and that even if the matter had to be reviewed on a de novo basis, she would have arrived at the same conclusion. She noted that the merits of the section 8 damages claims were best left to the trial judge.
[3] Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, and considering their oral arguments, we have not been persuaded that the judge committed an error that would justify this Court’s intervention, particularly in a file of such complexity where the case manager had such an intimate knowledge of all the relevant proceedings and of the uniqueness of the circumstances.
[4] Obviously, our decision should not be understood as endorsing the validity of the claims which have yet to be determined by the trial judge.
[5] Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs
"Johanne Gauthier"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket:
A-298-13
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KANE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA, DATED AUGUST 30, 2013, DOCKET NO. T-1409-04
STYLE OF CAUSE:
APOTEX INC. v. ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC. AND AKTIEBOLAGET HÄSSLE
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
May 28, 2014
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
SHARLOW J.A.
GAUTHIER J.A.
MAINVILLE J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Andrew Brodkin
Daniel Cappe
For The Appellant
Mark G. Biernacki
For The Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Goodmans LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
For The Appellant
Smart & Biggar
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
For The Respondents