Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al., 2004 FC 1133

• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 03, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 FC 1133;(2004), 271 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2004), 271 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.035

Apotex Inc. (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) v. Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Frosst Canada & Co. (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim)

(T-294-96; 2004 FC 1133)

Indexed As: Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al.

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

August 16, 2004.

Summary:

Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada & Co. brought a motion pursuant to Federal Court Rule 107, asking that the question of their entitlement to elect an accounting of the profits flowing from Apotex Inc.'s infringement of their patent be determined separately and prior to any, or further, discovery into a quantification of damages or profits.

The Federal Court granted the motion.

Patents of Invention - Topic 3506

Infringement actions - Severance of issues - [See Practice - Topic 5204 ].

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada & Co. brought a motion pursuant to Federal Court Rule 107, asking that the question of their entitlement to elect an accounting of the profits flowing from Apotex Inc.'s infringement of their patent be determined separately and prior to any, or further, discovery into a quantification of damages or profits - The Federal Court granted the motion for a bifurcation order - The court held that proceeding in such a fashion would more likely than not result in the most just, expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on the merits - The court considered, inter alia, that an early determination of Merck's entitlement to an accounting of profits would narrow the scope of the discoveries to be conducted - The bifurcation order also contained directions regarding the procedures applicable to examinations for discovery and production of documents.

Cases Noticed:

Apotex Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. (2003), 308 N.R. 152; 26 C.P.R.(4th) 129; 2003 FCA 263, refd to. [para. 3].

Illva Saronno S.p.A. v. Privilegiata Fabbrica maraschino Excelsior Girolamo Luxardo S.p.A. et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 146; 157 F.T.R. 217; 84 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].

Illva Saronno S.p.A. v. Privilegiata Fabbrica Maraschino Excelsior Girolamo Luxardo S.p.A. et al. (2000), 183 F.T.R. 25 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2003), 308 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2003), 307 N.R. 364; 2003 FCA 291, refd to. [para. 4].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2004), 259 F.T.R. 238; 2004 FC 1038, refd to. [para. 6].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al., [2004] F.T.R. Uned. B11; 2004 FC 1131, refd to. [para. 6].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1994), 88 F.T.R. 260; 59 C.P.R.(3d) 133 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (1995), 60 C.P.R.(3d) 298 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2003), 307 N.R. 364; 26 C.P.R.(4th) 278 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, 1998, rule 107 [para. 2].

Counsel:

G. Alexander Macklin and Connie Too, for the plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim);

Nando DeLuca, for the defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim).

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim);

Goodmans LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim).

This motion was heard on August 3, 2004, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on August 16, 2004.