Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc v. Apotex Inc.

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc v. Apotex Inc.

The judge reviewed the matter de novo because the issue was vital to the final determination and concluded Prothonotary Aronovitch did not err: conflicting authority meant it was not plain and obvious Sanofi Canada’s claims would fail; a licensee can seek equitable relief including injunctions, delivery-up and an accounting in appropriate circumstances; the prothonotary’s costs award was within discretionary bounds and not clearly wrong. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
2008 FC 628
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc.; Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Schering Corporation; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Apotex Inc.; Defendant by Counterclaim: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Defendant by Counterclaim: Ratiopharm Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (federal Court) / Appeal From Prothonotary Order (motion to Strike, Interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (one set of costs)
Legal Topics
Motion to Strike, Equitable Relief, Licensee Rights, Costs, Injunction, Accounting of Profits
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Motion to Strike Equitable Relief Licensee Rights Costs Injunction +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Schering Corporation

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Apotex Inc.

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Defendant by Counterclaim

Ratiopharm Inc.

Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (federal Court) / Appeal From Prothonotary Order (motion to Strike, Interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary erred in dismissing Apotex’s motion to strike portions of the statement of claim
  2. 2 Whether a licensee (Sanofi Canada) may seek equitable relief including injunctions and an accounting of profits
  3. 3 Whether the award of costs ($5,000) against Apotex was properly exercised

Ratio Decidendi

The judge reviewed the matter de novo because the issue was vital to the final determination and concluded Prothonotary Aronovitch did not err: conflicting authority meant it was not plain and obvious Sanofi Canada’s claims would fail; a licensee can seek equitable relief including injunctions, delivery-up and an accounting in appropriate circumstances; the prothonotary’s costs award was within discretionary bounds and not clearly wrong. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (one set of costs)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (one set of costs; prothonotary had fixed costs at $5,000)