Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

The prothonotary lawfully exercised discretion to limit the scope of examination for discovery by prioritizing expeditious case management under Rules 3 and 385 over unfettered relevance, thereby upholding the limits imposed in the initial phase and directing that remaining undertakings and agreed questions be answered in writing within 60 days and that the Merck representative need not attend further in person.

Citation
2003 FCT 558
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim): MERCK & CO., INC.; Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim): MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.; Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim): SYNGENTA LIMITED; Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim): ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED; Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim): ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): APOTEX INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Patent Action With Discovery Motion / Motion Following Second Phase of Examination for Discovery (pre Trial Discovery)
Outcome
Motion dismissed except for specified agreed undertakings and questions; specified limited document reviews ordered; Merck ordered to provide written answers within 60 days; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Examination for Discovery, Scope of Discovery, Limits on Questioning, Productions and Undertakings, Case Management Under Federal Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Patent Law Discovery Case Management Examination for Discovery Scope of Discovery Limits on Questioning Productions and Undertakings +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MERCK & CO., INC.

Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim)

MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.

Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim)

SYNGENTA LIMITED

Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim)

ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED

Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim)

ASTRAZENECA CANADA INC.

Plaintiff (defendant to the Counterclaim)

APOTEX INC.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Patent Action With Discovery Motion / Motion Following Second Phase of Examination for Discovery (pre Trial Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the scope of examination for discovery should be limited despite relevance
  2. 2 Balancing relevance against expeditious case management under Rule 3
  3. 3 Whether the Merck representative must attend in person for further questioning

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary lawfully exercised discretion to limit the scope of examination for discovery by prioritizing expeditious case management under Rules 3 and 385 over unfettered relevance, thereby upholding the limits imposed in the initial phase and directing that remaining undertakings and agreed questions be answered in writing within 60 days and that the Merck representative need not attend further in person.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed except for specified agreed undertakings and questions; specified limited document reviews ordered; Merck ordered to provide written answers within 60 days; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Merck representative Dr. Wyvratt is not required to attend in person again to answer outstanding questions.
  • Merck shall provide written answers to agreed undertakings and the questions agreed to be answered within sixty (60) days of the order.