Hoffman la Roche Ltd. v. Kirin Amgen Inc.

Hoffman la Roche Ltd. v. Kirin Amgen Inc.

The appeal fails because the impugned claim sought to re-litigate the same issue concerning the same product (different batches of RECORMON) that was finally decided in prior proceedings; that attempt is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel and constitutes an abuse of process, and no special circumstances justified avoiding the doctrine, therefore the prothonotary's striking of the action was correct and must be upheld.

Citation
2001 FCT 314
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Hoffman-La Roche Limited / Hoffman-La Roche Limitée; Defendant (respondent): Kirin-Amgen Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement; Motion to Strike; Appeal / Appeal to Federal Court From Prothonotary's Order on Motion to Strike (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; prothonotary's order striking the action affirmed; motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Motion to Strike, Declaration of Non Infringement, Abuse of Process, Pleading Requirements
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Finality of Litigation Abuse of Process Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Motion to Strike +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hoffman-La Roche Limited / Hoffman-La Roche Limitée

Plaintiff (appellant)

Kirin-Amgen Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement; Motion to Strike; Appeal / Appeal to Federal Court From Prothonotary's Order on Motion to Strike (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim seeking to introduce evidence of different batches of the same product is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel
  2. 2 Whether the prothonotary properly struck the action as an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the prior judgment left open a right to seek a declaration of non-infringement for the same product but different batches

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the impugned claim sought to re-litigate the same issue concerning the same product (different batches of RECORMON) that was finally decided in prior proceedings; that attempt is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel and constitutes an abuse of process, and no special circumstances justified avoiding the doctrine, therefore the prothonotary's striking of the action was correct and must be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; prothonotary's order striking the action affirmed; motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Prothonotary Lafrenière's order striking the action is upheld