Pharmascience Inc. v. Pfizer Canada ULC

Pharmascience Inc. v. Pfizer Canada ULC

Prothonotary Aalto erred in finding Pfizer's proposed amendments constituted abuse of process or were precluded by issue estoppel because the Teva decision involved different parties and materially different factual circumstances; the factual question of Pharmascience's ability to supply the market must be decided...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 FC 1272
Parties
Plaintiff: Pharmascience Inc.; Defendant: Pfizer Canada ULC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Prothonotary Decision in Civil Damages Action Under the Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Interlocutory Appeal (motion to Amend Statement of Defence)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; Prothonotary Aalto's decision set aside; defendant Pfizer permitted to amend its statement of defence
Legal Topics
Notice of Compliance Regulations, Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel, Amendment of Pleadings, Damages for Lost Sales, Supply of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient
Source Language
english
Intellectual Property Regulatory Law Civil Procedure Notice of Compliance Regulations Abuse of Process Issue Estoppel Amendment of Pleadings Damages for Lost Sales +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pharmascience Inc.

Plaintiff

Pfizer Canada ULC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Prothonotary Decision in Civil Damages Action Under the Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations / Interlocutory Appeal (motion to Amend Statement of Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prothonotary erred in finding Pfizer's proposed amendments amounted to abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether issue estoppel or res judicata prevented relitigation of API supply issues given prior Teva decision
  3. 3 Whether Pfizer should be permitted to amend its statement of defence to plead particulars about API supplier, specification changes, launch date and manufacturing capacity

Ratio Decidendi

Prothonotary Aalto erred in finding Pfizer's proposed amendments constituted abuse of process or were precluded by issue estoppel because the Teva decision involved different parties and materially different factual circumstances; the factual question of Pharmascience's ability to supply the market must be decided on evidence specific to this case, therefore Pfizer is permitted to amend its statement of defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; Prothonotary Aalto's decision set aside; defendant Pfizer permitted to amend its statement of defence

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Leave granted to Pfizer Canada ULC to amend its statement of defence in T-1434-14