Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2004

Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Inc.

2004 FCA 224
GeneralJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-06-09 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 224 File numbers A-29-04 Decision Content Date: 20040609 Docket: A-29-04 Citation: 2004 FCA 224 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: ASTRAZENECA AB and ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC. Appellants (Applicants) and APOTEX INC. and THE MINISTER OF HEALTH Respondents (Respondents) Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 9, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 9, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20040609 Docket: A-29-04 Citation: 2004 FCA 224 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: ASTRAZENECA AB and ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC. Appellants (Applicants) and APOTEX INC. and THE MINISTER OF HEALTH Respondents (Respondents) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 9, 2004) SHARLOW J.A. [1] Having heard the representations and read the submissions of both parties, we are not persuaded that there is any basis for distinguishing this case from Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Apotex et al. (1999), 240 N.R. 195 (F.C.A.), Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Nu-Pharm Inc.; Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (2001), 11 C.P.R. (4th) 245 (F.C.A.), Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Rhoxalpharma Inc. (2001), 16 C.P.R. (4th) 188 (F.C.A.) and Novartis AG v. Apotex Inc. (2002), 22 C.P.R. (4th) 450 (F.C.A.). We are persuaded that this appeal is moot, and that there …

Read full judgment
Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-06-09
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 224
File numbers
A-29-04
Decision Content
Date: 20040609
Docket: A-29-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 224
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ASTRAZENECA AB and
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.
Appellants
(Applicants)
and
APOTEX INC. and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Respondents
(Respondents)
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 9, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 9, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20040609
Docket: A-29-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 224
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
ASTRAZENECA AB and
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.
Appellants
(Applicants)
and
APOTEX INC. and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Respondents
(Respondents)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 9, 2004)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] Having heard the representations and read the submissions of both parties, we are not persuaded that there is any basis for distinguishing this case from Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. v. Apotex et al. (1999), 240 N.R. 195 (F.C.A.), Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Nu-Pharm Inc.; Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (2001), 11 C.P.R. (4th) 245 (F.C.A.), Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Rhoxalpharma Inc. (2001), 16 C.P.R. (4th) 188 (F.C.A.) and Novartis AG v. Apotex Inc. (2002), 22 C.P.R. (4th) 450 (F.C.A.). We are persuaded that this appeal is moot, and that there is no sound basis for hearing the appeal despite its mootness.
[2] This motion to dismiss the appeal should be allowed with costs.
"Karen R. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-29-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ASTRAZENECA AB and
ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.
Appellants
(Applicants)
and
APOTEX INC. and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH Respondents
(Respondents)
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 9, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: (LINDEN, SHARLOW & MALONE JJ.A)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Gunars Gaikis
Ms. Kavita Ramamoorthy FOR THE APPELLANTS
Mr. Andrew Brodkin FOR THE RESPONDENT,
APOTEX INC.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Smart & BiggarLLP
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANTS
Goodmans LLP
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT,
APOTEX INC.

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases