Apotex Inc. v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc.

The court refused to order Apotex to include any qualifying answers under Rule 289 because AstraZeneca did not meet the narrow criteria for qualifying read-ins; the court also refused to exclude AstraZeneca’s proposed read-ins and admitted them subject to later determination of admissibility of hypothetical evidence.

Citation
2017 FC 545
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Apotex Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Apotex Pharmachem Inc.; Defendant; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: AstraZeneca Canada Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: AstraZeneca Aktiebolag; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: AstraZeneca UK Limited
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Related Civil Litigation (evidentiary Disputes at Trial) / Trial (evidentiary Rulings on Read Ins)
Outcome
The parties’ respective requests to order qualifying read-ins and to exclude read-ins are refused.
Legal Topics
Rule 288 Read Ins, Rule 289 Qualifying Answers, Examinations for Discovery, Admissibility of Hypothetical Questions, Approbation and Reprobation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Patent Law Rule 288 Read Ins Rule 289 Qualifying Answers Examinations for Discovery Admissibility of Hypothetical Questions Approbation and Reprobation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apotex Inc.

Plaintiff; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Apotex Pharmachem Inc.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

AstraZeneca Canada Inc.

Defendant; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

AstraZeneca Aktiebolag

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

AstraZeneca UK Limited

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Related Civil Litigation (evidentiary Disputes at Trial) / Trial (evidentiary Rulings on Read Ins)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether qualifying answers under Rule 289 should be ordered to be read-in to supplement opposing party's Rule 288 read-ins
  2. 2 Whether specific read-ins containing hypothetical evidence should be excluded or admitted subject to later admissibility rulings
  3. 3 Whether the court may admit contingent/read-in evidence subject to later determination of admissibility

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order Apotex to include any qualifying answers under Rule 289 because AstraZeneca did not meet the narrow criteria for qualifying read-ins; the court also refused to exclude AstraZeneca’s proposed read-ins and admitted them subject to later determination of admissibility of hypothetical evidence.

Court Disposition

The parties’ respective requests to order qualifying read-ins and to exclude read-ins are refused.

Orders

  • The parties' respective requests to order qualifying read-ins and to exclude read-ins are refused.