Teva Canada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

Teva Canada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc.

The appeal is dismissed. The Prothonotary correctly applied the legal principles (including the plain and obvious test, the 'but for' approach to s.8 claims, and the 'clearly abusive' abuse of process standard) and did not err in law or misapprehend the facts. The questions addressed were not of such vitality as to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 FC 1066
Parties
Plaintiff: Teva Canada Limited; Defendants: Pfizer Canada Inc. and Pfizer Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.8 Damages Action (patent/pmnoc) / Appeal From Prothonotary's Order Dismissing Motion to Strike; Matter Remitted to Trial (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff (Teva)
Legal Topics
PMNOC Regulations S.8, Notice of Compliance, Damages (but‑for Causation), Motion to Strike (plain and Obvious), Standard of Review (merck Test), Abuse of Process, Patent Impeachment/invalidity
Source Language
english
Patent Law Regulatory Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Intellectual Property PMNOC Regulations S.8 Notice of Compliance Damages (but‑for Causation) +4 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teva Canada Limited

Plaintiff

Pfizer Canada Inc. and Pfizer Inc.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Patented Medicines (notice of Compliance) Regulations S.8 Damages Action (patent/pmnoc) / Appeal From Prothonotary's Order Dismissing Motion to Strike; Matter Remitted to Trial (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the questions decided by the Prothonotary were 'vital' to the final resolution requiring de novo review under Merck v Apotex
  2. 2 Whether Teva's s.8 claim is plain and obvious and thus properly struck
  3. 3 Whether Teva's claim amounts to abuse of process or is clearly abusive

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed. The Prothonotary correctly applied the legal principles (including the plain and obvious test, the 'but for' approach to s.8 claims, and the 'clearly abusive' abuse of process standard) and did not err in law or misapprehend the facts. The questions addressed were not of such vitality as to compel de novo review under Merck; s.8 liability and quantum involve complex hypothetical scenarios that require full evidentiary trial rather than resolution on a strike motion, so Teva's claim must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff (Teva)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the Plaintiff