Schering-plough canada inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

Schering-plough canada inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

There is no conflict between s.6(4) of the PM(NOC) Regulations and Rule 303(1)(b); Sepracor was properly named as a respondent. However, under Rule 305 only a respondent who intends to oppose the application may file a notice of appearance; a named respondent may not file a modified notice of appearance to present...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 FC 359
Parties
Applicant: SCHERING-PLOUGH CANADA INC.; Applicant: SCHERING CORPORATION; Respondent: PHARMASCIENCE INC.; Respondent: SEPRACOR INC.; Respondent: THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Pm(noc) Application / Motion to Strike Notice of Appearance
Outcome
Notice of appearance filed on behalf of Sepracor struck from the Court's record; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Pm(noc) Regulations, Federal Courts Rules, Rule 305, Notice of Appearance, Intervener Status, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Law Regulatory Law Pm(noc) Regulations Federal Courts Rules Rule 305 +3 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SCHERING-PLOUGH CANADA INC.

Applicant

SCHERING CORPORATION

Applicant

PHARMASCIENCE INC.

Respondent

SEPRACOR INC.

Respondent

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Pm(noc) Application / Motion to Strike Notice of Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsection 6(4) of the PM(NOC) Regulations conflicts with the Federal Courts Rules such that the Regulations prevail
  2. 2 Whether a named respondent may file a notice of appearance if it does not intend to oppose the application and instead wishes to support the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

There is no conflict between s.6(4) of the PM(NOC) Regulations and Rule 303(1)(b); Sepracor was properly named as a respondent. However, under Rule 305 only a respondent who intends to oppose the application may file a notice of appearance; a named respondent may not file a modified notice of appearance to present arguments supporting the applicant. Consequently Sepracor's notice of appearance was rejected and struck; Sepracor may seek intervener status under Rule 109 or apply to be joined as an applicant under Rule 104.

Court Disposition

Notice of appearance filed on behalf of Sepracor struck from the Court's record; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The notice of appearance filed on behalf of Sepracor Inc. is struck from the Court's record.
  • Costs in the cause.