Apotex Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2004-07-23
Neutral citation
2004 FC 1035
File numbers
T-482-04
Decision Content
Date: 20040723
Docket: T-482-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1035
Montréal, Quebec, July 23, 2004
Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
APOTEX INC.
Plaintiff
and
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.,
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC,
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,
DOE CO. AND ALL OTHER ENTITIES UNKNOWN
TO THE PLAINTIFF WHICH ARE PART OF THE
GLAXOSMITHKLINE GROUP OF COMPANIES
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Considering the motion by the defendants Glaxosmithkline PLC (Glaxo U.K.) and Smithkline Beecham Corporation (Glaxo U.S.) under Rules 104(1)(a) and 208 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the Rules) for an order declaring that said defendants are not proper and necessary parties to the action instituted herein by the plaintiff under Section 8 of the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, as amended (the Regulations), and that therefore said defendants should be struck as parties to the action;
[2] Considering the oral and written representations submitted by all parties;
[3] Considering that apart from the wording per se of Section 8 of the Regulations, the main and essential basis supporting the defendants Glaxo U.K. and Glaxo U.S. motion is the decision rendered by the Court on March 31, 2004 in Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company Inc. and Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2004 FC 502 (the Lilly U.S. decision);
[4] Considering that the Lilly U.S. decision is presently under appeal, and considering that the undersigned does not want at this juncture to prejudge whether the Court of Appeal will maintain said decision or whether it will be swayed by the representations raised by Apotex against said decision, and especially the ones put forward by Apotex in paragraphs 48 to 50 of its written representations submitted in response to the motion at bar;
[5] Considering in addition that the motion that led up to the Lilly U.S. decision was a motion for summary judgment whereas the motion under study here is a motion tantamount to a motion to strike the adjudication of which is the subject of a stringent test;
ORDER
Consequently, it is hereby ordered that the defendants Glaxo U.K. and Glaxo U.S. motion is dismissed, costs in the cause.
The moving defendants shall serve and file their statement of defence within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
The instant order does not prevent the defendants from relying in their statement of defence on the grounds raised in their motion or to move the Court again in the future if circumstances warrant it.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-482-04
APOTEX INC.
Plaintiff
and
GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.,
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC,
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,
DOE CO. AND ALL OTHER ENTITIES UNKNOWN
TO THE PLAINTIFF WHICH ARE PART OF THE
GLAXOSMITHKLINE GROUP OF COMPANIES
Defendants
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: July 19, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
DATE OF REASONS July 23, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Andrew R. Brodkin
for Plaintiff
Mr. François Grenier
for Defendants Glaxosmithkline PLC and Smithkline Beecham Corporation
Mr. Anthony Creber
for Defendant Glaxosmithkline Inc.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Goodmans
Toronto, Ontario
for Plaintiff
Léger Robic Richard
Montréal, Quebec
for Defendants Glaxosmithkline PLC and Smithkline Beecham Corporation
Gowling Lafleur Henderson
Ottawa, Ontario
for Defendant Glaxosmithkline Inc.