Nycomed Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

Nycomed Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2012-06-25
Neutral citation
2012 FCA 195
File numbers
A-480-11
Decision Content
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20120625
Dockets: A-480-11
A-481-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 195
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
A-480-11
BETWEEN:
NYCOMED CANADA INC., NYCOMED GMBH and
NYCOMED INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT GMBH
Appellants
and
TEVA CANADA LIMITED
Respondent
A-481-11
BETWEEN:
NYCOMED CANADA INC
Appellant
and
APOTEX INC.
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
NYCOMED CANADA INC. and NYCOMED GMBH
Appellants
and
APOTEX INC.
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 25, 2012.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 25, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20120625
Dockets: A-480-11
A-481-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 195
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
A-480-11
BETWEEN:
NYCOMED CANADA INC., NYCOMED GMBH and
NYCOMED INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT GMBH
Appellants
and
TEVA CANADA LIMITED
Respondent
A-481-11
BETWEEN:
NYCOMED CANADA INC
Appellant
and
APOTEX INC.
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
NYCOMED CANADA INC. and NYCOMED GMBH
Appellants
and
APOTEX INC.
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 25, 2012)
NOËL J.A.
[1] There are two appeals from decisions of Simpson J. of the Federal Court who dismissed the appellants appeals from earlier decisions by Prothonotary Milczynski based on a single set of reasons. Simpson J. after conducting a de novo review, agreed with Prothonotary Milczynski that the plea of “contributory infringement” in the statements of defence and counterclaim filed by the appellants had to be struck as it was plain and obvious that it would fail.
[2] These reasons dispose of both appeals, the original being filed in Court file A-480-11, and a copy thereof being filed in Court file A-481-11 as reasons for judgment in that matter.
[3] Despite the able submissions by Counsel for the appellants, we can detect no error in the decision reached by Simpson J. In particular, we adopt the reasoning set out at paragraph 27 of her reasons for holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34, is not indicative of an intention to depart from the existing precedents and to recognize “contributory infringement” as a cause of action under the Canadian law.
[4] The appeals will be dismissed with costs in each instance.
"Marc Noël"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-480-11
(APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIMPSON OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED DECEMBER 9, 2011, DOCKET NO. T-368-08)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Nycomed Canada Inc. Nycomed GMBH and Nycomed International Management GMBH and Teva Canada Limited
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 25, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (Noël, Evans & Sharlow JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Noël J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Lindsay Neidrauer
Afif Hamid
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Andrew Skodyn
Ben Wallwork
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
BELMORE NEIDRAUER LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANTS
HEENAN BLAIKIE LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-481-11
(APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIMPSON OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED DECEMBER 9, 2011, DOCKET NO. T-1786-08)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Nycomed Canada Inc. and Apotex Inc. AND Nycomed Canada Inc. and Nycomed GMBH and Apotex Inc.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 25, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (Noël, Evans & Sharlow JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Noël J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Lindsay Neidrauer
Afif Hamid
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Daniel Cappe
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
BELMORE NEIDRAUER LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANTS
GOODMANS LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT