Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

The Prothonotary had the authority to fix trial dates in the case management context, and she did not misapply the law or misapprehend the facts in scheduling the January 12, 2009 thirty-day trial; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2007 FC 906
Parties
Plaintiff: SANOFI-AVENTIS CANADA INC.; Plaintiff: SCHERING CORPORATION; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: APOTEX INC.; Defendant by Counterclaim: SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GmbH; Defendant by Counterclaim: RATIOPHARM INC.; Interested Non Party: NOVOPHARM LTD.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement With Counterclaims Including Invalidity, Competition Act and Trade Marks Act Claims / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Setting Trial Date; Pre Trial / Case Management
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Trial Scheduling, Case Management, Bifurcation, Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Consolidation, Notice of Compliance, Expedited Hearing
Source Language
English
Patent Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Competition Law Trade Mark Law Trial Scheduling Case Management Bifurcation +4 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SANOFI-AVENTIS CANADA INC.

Plaintiff

SCHERING CORPORATION

Plaintiff

APOTEX INC.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GmbH

Defendant by Counterclaim

RATIOPHARM INC.

Defendant by Counterclaim

NOVOPHARM LTD.

Interested Non Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement With Counterclaims Including Invalidity, Competition Act and Trade Marks Act Claims / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Setting Trial Date; Pre Trial / Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Prothonotary have the power to set the action down for trial?
  2. 2 Did the Prothonotary wrongly exercise her discretion by failing to take into account the related Novopharm action and other patent actions?
  3. 3 Should the Prothonotary’s finding that the January 2009 trial dates were agreeable to all parties be disturbed?

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary had the authority to fix trial dates in the case management context, and she did not misapply the law or misapprehend the facts in scheduling the January 12, 2009 thirty-day trial; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Original order of Prothonotary Milczynsky scheduling the trial to commence January 12, 2009 for 30 days remains in effect.