Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

The Court struck paragraphs that sought unbounded discovery and relied on foreign proceedings where Apotex was not a party or where the pleaded material was speculative or irrelevant (paragraphs 183–192), but allowed the defendant to amend and include a narrowed paragraph 176 and paragraphs 177–182 because those paragraphs, relating to the final Korean decision and allegations that Apotex’s product and process are materially the same as the Korean product, raise triable issues and are properly pleaded at this stage. Costs in the cause were ordered.

Citation
2011 FC 862
Parties
Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim: AstraZeneca Canada Inc.; Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim: Aktiebolaget Hässle; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Apotex Inc.; Defendant by Counterclaim: AstraZeneca AB
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement — Pleadings Motion / Pre Trial Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and Application for Particulars; Permission to Amend Granted in Part
Outcome
Defendant permitted to file amended defence to include amended paragraph 176 and paragraphs 177–182; paragraphs 183–192 disallowed; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Discovery Limits, Pleadings, Foreign Judgments
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Patent Law Private International Law Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Discovery Limits Pleadings Foreign Judgments

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AstraZeneca Canada Inc.

Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim

Aktiebolaget Hässle

Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim

Apotex Inc.

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

AstraZeneca AB

Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement — Pleadings Motion / Pre Trial Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and Application for Particulars; Permission to Amend Granted in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of the defendant’s amended statement of defence and counterclaim pleading reliance on or seeking to litigate findings from foreign proceedings are permissible
  2. 2 Whether issue estoppel or abuse of process can be founded on findings in foreign proceedings or on the failure to assert certain claims abroad
  3. 3 Whether proposed paragraphs amount to an improper fishing expedition and are therefore to be struck

Ratio Decidendi

The Court struck paragraphs that sought unbounded discovery and relied on foreign proceedings where Apotex was not a party or where the pleaded material was speculative or irrelevant (paragraphs 183–192), but allowed the defendant to amend and include a narrowed paragraph 176 and paragraphs 177–182 because those paragraphs, relating to the final Korean decision and allegations that Apotex’s product and process are materially the same as the Korean product, raise triable issues and are properly pleaded at this stage. Costs in the cause were ordered.

Court Disposition

Defendant permitted to file amended defence to include amended paragraph 176 and paragraphs 177–182; paragraphs 183–192 disallowed; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Defendant may file, within ten (10) days, an Amended Defence to include paragraph 176 as amended and paragraphs 177 to 182; paragraphs 183 to 192 shall not be included.
  • Costs in the cause.