Bayer Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

Bayer Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and applied Rule 3 to conclude that, on balance and in the interests of justice, Taro and Sandoz should be added as defendants to the scheduled hearing of common issues because they are able to meet the existing schedule, joinder avoids duplicative and potentially inconsistent trials, the incremental delay is less than separate trials, and the Court should hear evidence and submissions from all parties before deciding claims construction and invalidity.

Citation
2019 FC 1039
Parties
Plaintiff: Bayer Inc.; Plaintiff: Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH; Defendant: Teva Canada Limited; Defendant: Apotex Inc.; Defendant: Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant: Sandoz Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Action Under the Patented Medicine (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Pre Trial Motion Regarding Joinder of Defendants to a Scheduled Hearing of Common Issues; Trial Preparations Underway
Outcome
Granted; Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sandoz Canada Inc. added as defendants to the trial of common issues already set for Teva Canada Limited and Apotex Inc.; trial preparations to continue as scheduled.
Legal Topics
Joinder, Common Issues, Trial Management, Claims Construction, Invalidity, Regulatory Timelines
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Administrative/regulatory Law Joinder Common Issues Trial Management Claims Construction +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bayer Inc.

Plaintiff

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH

Plaintiff

Teva Canada Limited

Defendant

Apotex Inc.

Defendant

Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Defendant

Sandoz Canada Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action Under the Patented Medicine (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Pre Trial Motion Regarding Joinder of Defendants to a Scheduled Hearing of Common Issues; Trial Preparations Underway

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Taro and Sandoz should be added as defendants to the trial of common issues already set for Teva and Apotex
  2. 2 Whether adding late defendants would prejudice Teva and Apotex given regulatory timelines and purported first mover advantage
  3. 3 Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction and Rule 3 powers to order joinder to secure an expeditious and least expensive determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and applied Rule 3 to conclude that, on balance and in the interests of justice, Taro and Sandoz should be added as defendants to the scheduled hearing of common issues because they are able to meet the existing schedule, joinder avoids duplicative and potentially inconsistent trials, the incremental delay is less than separate trials, and the Court should hear evidence and submissions from all parties before deciding claims construction and invalidity.

Court Disposition

Granted; Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sandoz Canada Inc. added as defendants to the trial of common issues already set for Teva Canada Limited and Apotex Inc.; trial preparations to continue as scheduled.

Orders

  • The trial of common issues in Bayer Inc et al v Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc (T-435-19) and Bayer Inc et al v Sandoz Canada Inc (T-806-19) shall be heard together with the trial of common issues previously set for Bayer Inc et al v Teva Canada Limited (T-1960-18) and Bayer Inc et al v Apotex Inc (T-2093-18).
  • The trial preparations shall continue in accordance with the schedule currently set for the Teva and Apotex matters.