Apotex Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc.

Applying the 'clearly wrong' standard of review for a prothonotary's discretionary discovery order, the Court found the Prothonotary did not err in principle or misapprehend the facts: the questions refused were properly characterized as expert opinion, matters of common general knowledge or law, or irrelevant; therefore the Prothonotary's order was upheld and the motion dismissed.

Citation
2004 FC 1198
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Apotex Inc.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Bernard Charles Sherman; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Pharmascience Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action / Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary's Discovery Order (interlocutory Discovery Motion); Decision on Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed; Prothonotary Aronovitch's order of May 3, 2004 upheld
Legal Topics
Scope of Discovery, Expert Opinion, Common General Knowledge, Infringement, Invalidity, Standard of Review for Prothonotary Decisions
Source Language
English
Patent Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Discovery Law Scope of Discovery Expert Opinion Common General Knowledge Infringement +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apotex Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Bernard Charles Sherman

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Pharmascience Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action / Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary's Discovery Order (interlocutory Discovery Motion); Decision on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary's order refusing to compel answers on discovery was clearly wrong
  2. 2 Proper scope of discovery in patent litigation under Rule 240
  3. 3 Whether the disputed questions called for expert opinion or legal interpretation rather than factual evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the 'clearly wrong' standard of review for a prothonotary's discretionary discovery order, the Court found the Prothonotary did not err in principle or misapprehend the facts: the questions refused were properly characterized as expert opinion, matters of common general knowledge or law, or irrelevant; therefore the Prothonotary's order was upheld and the motion dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; Prothonotary Aronovitch's order of May 3, 2004 upheld

Orders

  • The motion be dismissed
  • Costs to the defendant established at $2,500