Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date:20001124


Docket:A-732-99

CORAM:      STONE J.A.

         ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         EVANS J.A.

BETWEEN:


APOTEX INC.

     Appellant

     (Plaintiff)

     - and -             

    

    

                

     MERCK & CO., INC. and

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     Respondents

     (Defendants)



Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, November 23, 2000


Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,

on Thursday, November 23, 2000

                                        




                            

                                    

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.     

                        

Date: 20001124


Docket: A-732-99

                                    

CORAM:      STONE J.A.

         ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         EVANS J.A.

BETWEEN:


             APOTEX INC.

     Appellant

     (Plaintiff)

     - and -             

    

    

                

     MERCK & CO., INC. and

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     Respondents

     (Defendants)



     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

on Thursday, November 23, 2000)

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         _.      This is an appeal from an Order of Lemieux J. striking paragraph 14 of the appellant's defence to counterclaim on the ground of res judicata. Despite Miss Bassan's argument, we have not been persuaded that Lemieux J. erred in finding that the issue of the validity of Merck's patent 1275349 was res judicata and in striking Apotex's pleading of invalidity. We do not think he took too broad an approach to the question of issue estoppel. Nor have any special circumstances been advanced that would indicate that he should have exercised his discretion to permit the issue of validity to be re-litigated.
         _.      The appeal will be dismissed with costs fixed at $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and payable forthwith.

                                    

"Marshall Rothstein"

J.A.

                                                

              FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                            

DOCKET:                      A-732-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  APOTEX INC.

     Appellant

     (Plaintiff)

                         - and -             

                    

                         MERCK & CO., INC. and

                         MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     Respondents

     (Defendants)

DATE OF HEARING:              THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2000

                

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:          ROTHSTEIN J.A.             

Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, November 23, 2000

APPEARANCES:              Ms. Daniela F. Bassan

                        

                             For the Appellant

                        

                     Mr. G.A. Macklin

                             For the Respondents             

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:      Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

                     250 Yonge Street

                     Suite 2400

                     Toronto, Ontario

                     M5B 2M6

                             For the Appellant

                     Gowling Strathy & Henderson

                     160 Elgin Street

                     Suite 2600

                     Ottawa, Ontario

                     K1P 1C3

                             For the Respondents                     

                         FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL


Date: 20001124


Docket: A-732-99

                        

                         BETWEEN:

                         APOTEX INC.

     Appellant

     (Plaintiff)

                         - and -             

                            

    

                

                         MERCK & CO., INC. and

                         MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     Respondents

     (Defendants)





                        

                        

                         REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
                         OF THE COURT

                        

 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.