Apotex Inc. v. Hässle
Source text
Apotex Inc. v. Hässle Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-10-18 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 339 File numbers A-587-05 Decision Content Date: 20061018 Docket: A-587-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 339 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: APOTEX INC. Appellant and AKTIEBOLAGET HÄSSLE Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 18, 2006. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 18, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20061018 Docket: A-587-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 339 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: APOTEX INC. Appellant and AKTIEBOLAGET HÄSSLE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 18, 2006) NADON J.A. [1] On the basis of the allegations found in paragraph 53 of Apotex’ Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph 53 of its second Amended Statement of Claim we are satisfied that the Judge erred in upholding the Prothonotary’s Order that the productions sought by questions 90 and 95 were to be provided to the respondent. [2] The productions sought by questions 90 and 95, like the answers to questions 75 (both), 77, 82 and 86 were clearly irrelevant in view of the limited scope of the paragraph 53 allegations which are limited to statements made by the respondent in patents other than the one at issue in this appeal. [3] We are also satisfied that paragraph 13 of the Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph 13 of the secon…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Apotex Inc. v. Hässle Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-10-18 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 339 File numbers A-587-05 Decision Content Date: 20061018 Docket: A-587-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 339 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: APOTEX INC. Appellant and AKTIEBOLAGET HÄSSLE Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 18, 2006. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 18, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20061018 Docket: A-587-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 339 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: APOTEX INC. Appellant and AKTIEBOLAGET HÄSSLE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 18, 2006) NADON J.A. [1] On the basis of the allegations found in paragraph 53 of Apotex’ Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph 53 of its second Amended Statement of Claim we are satisfied that the Judge erred in upholding the Prothonotary’s Order that the productions sought by questions 90 and 95 were to be provided to the respondent. [2] The productions sought by questions 90 and 95, like the answers to questions 75 (both), 77, 82 and 86 were clearly irrelevant in view of the limited scope of the paragraph 53 allegations which are limited to statements made by the respondent in patents other than the one at issue in this appeal. [3] We are also satisfied that paragraph 13 of the Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph 13 of the second Amended Statement of Claim do not give rise either to the production of the regulatory file or the regulatory submission. Not only are these productions irrelevant with respect to the lack of utility issue raised by paragraph 53 of Apotex’ pleadings, they are also clearly irrelevant with regard to Apotex’ standing as an interested person. [4] The appeal will therefore be allowed with costs and the decision of the Federal Court dated November 21, 2005 will be set aside to the extent that it allows the respondent’s motion and orders the productions sought by questions 90 and 95. “M. Nadon” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-587-05 APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF HUGHES J. DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2005, DOCKET NO. T-2146-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: Apotex Inc. v. Aktiebolaget Hässle PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: October 18, 2006 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Linden, Nadon & Malone JJ.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Nadon J.A. APPEARANCES: David Lederman Ben Hackett FOR THE APPELLANT Mark G. Biernacki FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Goodmans LLP Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT Smart & Biggar Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca