JANUARY COURT ROUND UP

Below we highlight decisions released by the Federal Court in January that have not been previously discussed at http://www.canadaipblog.com/

On January 14th, the Federal Court released its decision in ELI LILLY CANADA INC. V TEVA CANADA LIMITED et al.  A copy of the decision can be found at the following link: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc28/2013fc28.html

This decision details the appropriate disposition of an application by Eli Lilly seeking a Prohibition Order to prevent the Minister of Health from issuing an Notice of Compliance with respect to Teva’s generic version of the cancer drug, Altima until the expiry of Canadian Patent Nos. 1,340,794 and 2,400,155, following 1) Teva established that its product would not infringe Canadian Patent No. 2,400,155 and 2) Teva’s withdrawal of its Notice of Allegation and Detailed Statement.

Eli Lily argued it was entitled to the Prohibition Order until the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 1,340,794, while Teva maintained that the application for a Prohibition Order was rendered moot in view of the above facts and thus the application for a Prohibition Order should be dismissed.

The Federal Court agreed with Teva.

On January 21st, Justice Hughes released his decision with respect to a motion for default judgment in the case of MONSANTO CANADA INC. AND MONSANTO COMPANY v DOUG VAN VERDEGEM AND BAR V FARMS LTD.  A copy of the decision can be found at the following link:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc50/2013fc50.html

Monsanto brought a motion for default judgement following the failure of the Defendants to file a Defence.  The motion by Monsanto was not supported by affidavit evidence directed to support the allegations made in the Statement of Claim.  Justice Hughes found that the motion of default judgement did not comply with Rule 210(3) which “requires that a motion for default judgement be supported by affidavit evidence”, and dismissed the motion for default judgement without prejudice.


By: Claire Palmer