Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

There is a serious issue to be tried on the asserted patents, but plaintiffs failed on the balance of probabilities to show they would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction and failed to demonstrate the balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief; accordingly the motion for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed; the motion to strike the Horne affidavit was dismissed and Apotex was granted leave to file the supplemental Harrington affidavit; most confidentiality redaction requests were denied except for limited financial and proprietary items.

Citation
2011 FC 505
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): AstraZeneca Canada Inc.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): AstraZeneca Aktiebolag; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Apotex Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Interlocutory Injunction / Motion for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Motion dismissed; interlocutory injunction denied.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience, PMNOC Regulations, Confidentiality Orders
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Pharmaceuticals Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Irreparable Harm Balance of Convenience PMNOC Regulations +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AstraZeneca Canada Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

AstraZeneca Aktiebolag

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Apotex Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Interlocutory Injunction / Motion for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried on patent infringement and validity
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent an interlocutory injunction
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an interlocutory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried on the asserted patents, but plaintiffs failed on the balance of probabilities to show they would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction and failed to demonstrate the balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief; accordingly the motion for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed; the motion to strike the Horne affidavit was dismissed and Apotex was granted leave to file the supplemental Harrington affidavit; most confidentiality redaction requests were denied except for limited financial and proprietary items.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; interlocutory injunction denied.

Orders

  • Dismiss motion for interlocutory injunction (AstraZeneca v. Apotex)
  • Dismiss AstraZeneca's motion to strike the Horne affidavit