Abbvie Corporation v. Janssen Inc.

Abbvie Corporation v. Janssen Inc.

The appeal was dismissed because the September 26, 2011 order did not preclude the Case Management Judge from fixing separate trial dates for remaining issues; the Case Management Judge lawfully exercised discretion under Rule 385 to manage and sever issues and his order contained no error of law or fundamental misapprehension of material facts justifying interference.

Citation
2014 FC 178
Parties
Plaintiffs (defendants by Counterclaim): ABBVIE CORPORATION, ABBVIE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH & CO. KG AND ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): JANSSEN INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action / Motion/appeal From Case Management Judge Order on Trial Scheduling; Pre Trial Scheduling
Outcome
Motion dismissed; appeal from Case Management Judge's order dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity and Infringement, Case Management, Interlocutory Injunction, Costs, Severance of Issues, Federal Courts Rules
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Appeal Patent Validity and Infringement Case Management Interlocutory Injunction Costs Severance of Issues +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABBVIE CORPORATION, ABBVIE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH & CO. KG AND ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD.

Plaintiffs (defendants by Counterclaim)

JANSSEN INC.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action / Motion/appeal From Case Management Judge Order on Trial Scheduling; Pre Trial Scheduling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Case Management Judge's order fixing a trial date for injunction-related issues should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the later scheduling order improperly varied an earlier September 26, 2011 order
  3. 3 Whether Rule 385 or Rule 399 governs a Case Management Judge's authority to make or vary case management orders

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the September 26, 2011 order did not preclude the Case Management Judge from fixing separate trial dates for remaining issues; the Case Management Judge lawfully exercised discretion under Rule 385 to manage and sever issues and his order contained no error of law or fundamental misapprehension of material facts justifying interference.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; appeal from Case Management Judge's order dismissed

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed.
  • The Plaintiffs are entitled to costs fixed in the sum of 5000.00 including disbursements and taxes.