Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     T-2792-96

B E T W E E N:

     MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.,

     ZENECA LIMITED and ZENECA PHARMA INC.

     Plaintiffs

     - and -

     APOTEX INC.

     Defendant

     REASONS FOR ORDER

ROTHSTEIN, J.:

     Apotex bring a second motion to strike out the Statement of Claim arising from new amendments made to the Statement of Claim by the plaintiffs.

     Paragraph 17 has been amended in accordance with the March 21, 1997 order of this Court and is therefore acceptable. Paragraph 18 provides further particulars pertaining to allegations in paragraph 17 and is acceptable.

     Paragraph 20 as presently worded speaks to the indefinite future. This is an infringement action and the Statement of Claim may address past and present infringement (and perhaps on a quia timet basis infringement in the immediate future) but should not be a basis for inquiries at discovery or trial about possible infringement at an indefinite time in the future. If paragraph 20 is reworded to state:

         "Apotex continues to offer for sale and sells lisinopril and APO-LISINOPRIL in Canada in response to the demand for same.         

the Court would find that acceptable.

     Paragraph 19 in my view, disclose no reasonable cause of action. While it alleges certain facts, even if these facts are true, they do not advance the plaintiffs' infringement action which is what this case is about. Allegations of past and current sales and offers for sale of lisinopril and APO-LISINOPRIL by Apotex are sufficient for that purpose and Apotex's application under the Ontario Drug Benefits Act and Regulations is superfluous. Paragraph 19 shall be struck.

     Counsel for Apotex submits that the plaintiffs' new amendments are an abuse of the process and on that ground the entire Statement of Claim should be struck. While I cannot rule out cases in which a party's abusive behaviour with respect to a portion of pleadings may justify striking the whole pleading, this is not such a case.

     Subject to the plaintiffs' amending paragraph 20 as set forth above, the motion is allowed with respect only to paragraph 19 and is otherwise dismissed.

"Marshall E. Rothstein"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

April 21, 1997

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                  T-2792-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:              MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL

                     - and -

                     APOTEX INC.

DATE OF HEARING:          APRIL 21, 1997

PLACE OF HEARING:          TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      ROTHSTEIN, J.

DATED:                  APRIL 21, 1997

APPEARANCES:

                     Mr. Gunars Gaikis

                     Mr. David Morrow

                         For the Plaintiffs

                     Mr. H.B. Radomski

                     Mr. David Scrimger

                         For the Defendant

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                     SMART & BIGGAR

                     Barristers and Solicitors

                     P.O. Box 39, Station P

                     439 University Avenue

                     Suite 2300

                     Toronto, Ontario

                     M5S 2S6

                         For the Plaintiffs

                     Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

                     Suite 2400

                     250 Yonge Street

                     Toronto, Ontario

                     M5B 2M6

                         For the Defendant

                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                     Court No.:      T-2792-96

                     Between:

                     MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL

     Plaintiffs

                         - and -

                     APOTEX INC.

                    

     Defendant

                     REASONS FOR ORDER


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.