Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc.

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc.

The motion for extension was dismissed because Apotex failed to prove an intention to appeal within the appeal period and provided an unsatisfactory explanation for an excessive 50‑day delay; the prothonotary's discretionary costs order was not shown to be clearly wrong or irrational and therefore should not be set aside; consequently the extension was refused and the costs order upheld, with the Court awarding costs on this motion to Lilly.

Citation
2004 FC 1343
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Eli Lilly and Company; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Eli Lilly Canada Inc.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Apotex Inc.; Defendant by Counterclaim: Shionogi & Co. Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement; Motion for Extension of Time and to Set Aside Costs Order / Motion to Extend Time and to Set Aside Prothonotary Costs Order (heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; Prothonotary Aronovitch's costs order of $10,000 upheld; costs of this motion awarded to Eli Lilly in the amount of $3,000 payable forthwith.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Costs Orders, Discretionary Relief, Privilege Claims, Case Management Deference, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Evidence and Privilege Court Administration Extension of Time Costs Orders Discretionary Relief +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eli Lilly and Company

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Eli Lilly Canada Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Apotex Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Shionogi & Co. Ltd.

Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement; Motion for Extension of Time and to Set Aside Costs Order / Motion to Extend Time and to Set Aside Prothonotary Costs Order (heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal a prothonotary's costs order
  2. 2 Whether the prothonotary's costs order should be set aside for error of law or principle
  3. 3 Whether Apotex provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay (intention to appeal, cause of delay)

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for extension was dismissed because Apotex failed to prove an intention to appeal within the appeal period and provided an unsatisfactory explanation for an excessive 50‑day delay; the prothonotary's discretionary costs order was not shown to be clearly wrong or irrational and therefore should not be set aside; consequently the extension was refused and the costs order upheld, with the Court awarding costs on this motion to Lilly.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; Prothonotary Aronovitch's costs order of $10,000 upheld; costs of this motion awarded to Eli Lilly in the amount of $3,000 payable forthwith.

Orders

  • The motion by Apotex for an extension of delay and to set aside the costs order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated June 4, 2004 is dismissed.
  • Prothonotary Aronovitch's costs order directing Apotex to pay $10,000.00 payable forthwith is upheld and not varied.