Alcon Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Alcon Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Dismissal of the bifurcation motion because Alcon failed to demonstrate that bifurcation would more likely than not produce substantial net savings or be the just, most expeditious and least expensive route given Apotex's s.8 counterclaim and the substantial factual overlap between liability, accounting of profits and s.8 quantification, and because bifurcation would cause duplication and delay without sufficient offsetting benefits.

Citation
2016 FC 898
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: ALCON CANADA INC.; Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.; Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: ALCON RESEARCH, LTD.; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: APOTEX INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action With Counterclaim Under the Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.8 / Motion for Bifurcation Pursuant to Rule 107 of the Federal Courts Rules (pre Trial)
Outcome
Alcon's motion for bifurcation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Bifurcation, Infringement, Section 8 Pm(noc) Damages, Accounting of Profits, Injunction, Anticompetitive Conduct, Discovery and Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Competition Law Regulatory Law Civil Procedure Bifurcation Infringement Section 8 Pm(noc) Damages +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALCON CANADA INC.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

ALCON RESEARCH, LTD.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

APOTEX INC.

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action With Counterclaim Under the Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.8 / Motion for Bifurcation Pursuant to Rule 107 of the Federal Courts Rules (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bifurcation of liability and quantification phases should be ordered under Rule 107
  2. 2 Whether s.8 counterclaim undermines cost savings of bifurcation
  3. 3 Whether the moving party has shown bifurcation will more likely than not result in a just, most expeditious and least expensive determination

Ratio Decidendi

Dismissal of the bifurcation motion because Alcon failed to demonstrate that bifurcation would more likely than not produce substantial net savings or be the just, most expeditious and least expensive route given Apotex's s.8 counterclaim and the substantial factual overlap between liability, accounting of profits and s.8 quantification, and because bifurcation would cause duplication and delay without sufficient offsetting benefits.

Court Disposition

Alcon's motion for bifurcation dismissed.

Orders

  • Alcon's motion is dismissed.
  • Costs, fixed in the amount of $3,750.00, shall be in the cause.