Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

The Prothonotary did not err in refusing the second production motion: Pfizer had previously had the opportunity to seek production, failed to exhaust or properly frame its relevancy arguments at first instance, the requested documents were not shown to be relevant to issues in the NOA, and the second motion amounted to abuse of process/issue estoppel and a collateral attack on prior determinations; therefore the court would not exercise its discretion to order production.

Citation
2009 FC 251
Parties
Applicant: Pfizer Canada Inc.; Applicant: Pfizer Limited; Applicant: Pfizer Research and Development Company, NV/SA; Respondent: Pharmascience Inc.; Respondent: The Minister of Health
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2009
Procedural Posture
NOC Application / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Production Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, NOC Regulations, Non Infringement, Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel, Relevance, Summary Proceedings
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Pharmaceutical Regulation Production of Documents NOC Regulations Non Infringement Abuse of Process +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pfizer Canada Inc.

Applicant

Pfizer Limited

Applicant

Pfizer Research and Development Company, NV/SA

Applicant

Pharmascience Inc.

Respondent

The Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

NOC Application / Appeal From Prothonotary Decision on Production Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary erred in refusing Pfizer’s motion for production of documents
  2. 2 Whether the requested documents were relevant to issues in the NOA (validity/infringement) or to the Minister’s actions
  3. 3 Whether the second production motion constituted abuse of process/issue estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary did not err in refusing the second production motion: Pfizer had previously had the opportunity to seek production, failed to exhaust or properly frame its relevancy arguments at first instance, the requested documents were not shown to be relevant to issues in the NOA, and the second motion amounted to abuse of process/issue estoppel and a collateral attack on prior determinations; therefore the court would not exercise its discretion to order production.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • THIS COURT ORDERS that this motion is dismissed.