Janssen Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

Janssen Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

The Court excluded specified passages as hearsay (Allain paras 13 and 39; Simm first report para 48 last sentence; Simm second report para 21 third sentence; Virani paras 26 and 27), admitted other passages as non‑hearsay or admissible for limited purpose (Allain para 38 limited to context; Simm paras 22 and 50 admissible; Kwon para 119 fn61 admissible only for supporting the opinion about what prior art would have been found), held that the challenged opinions of Dr. Agid are admissible though potential overstatements go to weight, gave no weight to Dr. Agid's self‑characterization as a "key opinion leader", and qualified Dr. Rabinow to give opinion evidence on pH, particle size...

Citation
2020 FC 87
Parties
Plaintiff: Janssen Inc.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Teva Canada Limited
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Declaration / Pre Trial Evidentiary Motion (hearsay and Expert Qualifications)
Outcome
Motion granted in part and denied in part; objections resolved as set out in the Order
Legal Topics
Claim Construction, Infringement, Obviousness, Hearsay Admissibility, Expert Qualification, Method of Medical Treatment (patentable Subject Matter)
Source Language
English
Patent Law Evidence Pharmaceutical Regulation Civil Procedure Claim Construction Infringement Obviousness Hearsay Admissibility +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janssen Inc.

Plaintiff

Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Teva Canada Limited

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations Declaration / Pre Trial Evidentiary Motion (hearsay and Expert Qualifications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified paragraphs of expert reports constitute hearsay and are inadmissible
  2. 2 Whether certain expert opinions exceed the experts' qualifications
  3. 3 Whether specific experts are qualified to opine on pharmaceutical formulation properties

Ratio Decidendi

The Court excluded specified passages as hearsay (Allain paras 13 and 39; Simm first report para 48 last sentence; Simm second report para 21 third sentence; Virani paras 26 and 27), admitted other passages as non‑hearsay or admissible for limited purpose (Allain para 38 limited to context; Simm paras 22 and 50 admissible; Kwon para 119 fn61 admissible only for supporting the opinion about what prior art would have been found), held that the challenged opinions of Dr. Agid are admissible though potential overstatements go to weight, gave no weight to Dr. Agid's self‑characterization as a "key opinion leader", and qualified Dr. Rabinow to give opinion evidence on pH, particle size...

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and denied in part; objections resolved as set out in the Order

Orders

  • Paragraphs 13 and 39 of the Allain Report are hearsay and are inadmissible; paragraph 38 is not hearsay but limited to providing context for paragraph 39 and of limited weight.
  • Paragraphs 22 and 50 of the Simm First Report are not hearsay.