Genentech, Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

Genentech, Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

Section 5(3.7) of the Regulations does not authorize a standalone originating motion; the term 'motion' must be read as an interlocutory proceeding within an existing section 6 action and, accordingly, the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to determine a motion under s.5(3.7) in the absence of an underlying section 6 action; the application was premature and dismissed.

Citation
2018 FC 233
Parties
Applicant/patent Owner: Genentech, Inc.; Applicant/first Person: Hoffmann-La Roche Limited; Respondent/second Person: Pfizer Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2018
Procedural Posture
NOC Proceeding (patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations) / Preliminary Motion to Vary Confidentiality Rules; No Underlying Section 6 Action
Outcome
Application/motion dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Rules, Jurisdiction, Motion Practice, Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Intellectual Property Procedural Law Regulatory Law Confidentiality Rules Jurisdiction Motion Practice Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations

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

Parties

Genentech, Inc.

Applicant/patent Owner

Hoffmann-La Roche Limited

Applicant/first Person

Pfizer Canada Inc.

Respondent/second Person

Procedural Posture

NOC Proceeding (patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations) / Preliminary Motion to Vary Confidentiality Rules; No Underlying Section 6 Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 5(3.7) permits a standalone originating motion absent a section 6 action
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear a motion under s.5(3.7) without an underlying action
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of the term 'motion' in the Regulations and in the Federal Courts Rules

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5(3.7) of the Regulations does not authorize a standalone originating motion; the term 'motion' must be read as an interlocutory proceeding within an existing section 6 action and, accordingly, the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to determine a motion under s.5(3.7) in the absence of an underlying section 6 action; the application was premature and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application/motion dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The application/motion is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of Genentech, Inc. and/or Hoffmann-La Roche Limited to bring a motion to set aside or vary Pfizer Canada Inc.’s confidentiality rules pursuant to section 5(3.7) of the Regulations in any action commenced pursuant to section 6 of the Regulations.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.