Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex inc.

Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex inc.

The motion to amend is dismissed because the proposed late amendment advances a materially different NIA that would cause substantial prejudice to AstraZeneca by undermining its profits election and the settled evidentiary record, would require reopening discovery and expert evidence, and would produce significant, unjustified delay and inefficiency that cannot be remedied by costs alone.

Citation
2017 FC 378
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): AstraZeneca Canada Inc.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Aktiebolaget Hässle; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): AstraZeneca AB; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Apotex Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Quantification Phase / Trial (evidence Closed; Motion to Amend During Final Phase)
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs awarded to AstraZeneca
Legal Topics
Non Infringing Alternative, Pleading Amendment, Trial Management, Costs, Jurisdictional Territoriality
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Non Infringing Alternative Pleading Amendment Trial Management Costs Jurisdictional Territoriality

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

Parties

AstraZeneca Canada Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Aktiebolaget Hässle

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

AstraZeneca AB

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Apotex Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Quantification Phase / Trial (evidence Closed; Motion to Amend During Final Phase)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Apotex may amend its responding statement late in trial to add a new non-infringing alternative based on manufacture outside Canada
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment causes irreversible prejudice to AstraZeneca and disruption to the trial schedule
  3. 3 Whether monetary compensation can cure prejudice caused by late amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend is dismissed because the proposed late amendment advances a materially different NIA that would cause substantial prejudice to AstraZeneca by undermining its profits election and the settled evidentiary record, would require reopening discovery and expert evidence, and would produce significant, unjustified delay and inefficiency that cannot be remedied by costs alone.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs awarded to AstraZeneca

Orders

  • Motion dismissed with costs payable to AstraZeneca in the amount of $15,000