PM(NOC) Damages

August 22, 2017
federal court blinding

Federal Court of Appeal remits decision based on hearsay evidence back to the Federal Court for redetermination

2016 FCA 161 - The FCA remitted a proceeding back to the FC for redetermination after agreeing with Pfizer that part of Teva’s evidence in the FC decision was based on hearsay.
May 9, 2017

Apotex’s Claims for Damages for Delayed Market Entry Allowed to Proceed

2017 ONSC 224 - Apotex sought compensation from Eli Lilly for damages suffered for delayed entry to the market for its generic version of olanzapine; the ONSC ordered Eli Lilly to pay Apotex a total of $20,000.
February 3, 2017

Does the Patent Act provide a “complete code” of remedies? ONSC allows the argument to proceed that it may not

2016 ONSC 7193 - The ONSC heard pleadings by Apotex and Pfizer concerning Pfizer’s, now invalid, patent for Viagra. Apotex had previously been prevented from manufacturing its own generic because of the Viagra patent, and now claimed damages for the delay in being able to market its own variant. The appeal was dismissed and Apotex’s claim was allowed to proceed unstruck.
October 6, 2016

Pharmaceutical Patentees Could Face More than 100% of Actual Damages under PM(NOC) Regulations

2014 FCA 68 - Innovator pharmaceutical companies should be cautious and think twice about how aggressively they defend their patents as they could potentially face paying more than 100% of actual damages as an award under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations.
May 26, 2014

Federal Court Grants Motion for Bifurcating Determination of Start of Liability Period under s. 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations

Apotex Inc v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2014 FC 159 - The Court confirmed that bifurcation of a PM(NOC) proceeding is not limited to liability/damages, and held that “[i]t is open to the Court to bifurcate any issue which will result in the saving of time, cost and judicial resources.” The issue need not be a threshold issue determinative of the proceedings.
March 21, 2014

FCA Upholds Trial Court Ruling that Availability of Compensation under s. 8 of the NOC Regulations Is a Question of Fact

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited - 2014 FCA 69 - The Court stated that whether there can be recovery for unauthorized indications under section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations is a question of fact, and that the purpose of section 8 damages is to compensate generics for a delay caused by NOC Proceedings.
March 21, 2014

FCA Upholds Rejection of Sanofi’s Motion to Amend Its Statement of Defence

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited - 2014 FCA 65 - The Court dismissed Sanofi’s appeal to amend its statement of defence in a PM(NOC) proceeding. It is not sufficient that allowing the amendment would not be unjust. What is required is that any injustice to the other party is capable of being compensated by an award of costs and the interest of justice must be served.
March 10, 2014

FCA Dismisses Pfizer’s Appeal Challenging Admissibility and Weight of Apotex Expert’s Testimony

Pfizer Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FCA 54 - The Court rejected Pfizer's argument that the trial judge did not properly apply the R. v. J.-L.J., 2000 SCC 51 case when assessing the admissibility of what Pfizer alleged were novel scientific theories put forth by Apotex’s expert.