Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al., (2002) 291 N.R. 96 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Sharlow and Malone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 11, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 291 N.R. 96 (FCA);2002 FCA 210

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2002), 291 N.R. 96 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. JN.025

Apotex Inc. (appellant/plaintiff) v. Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc. (respondents/defendants)

(A-120-01; 2002 FCA 210)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Sharlow and Malone, JJ.A.

May 28, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action for a de­claration that its use of the subject enalapril maleate did not infringe the defendants' patent. The defendants sought summary judgment. The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 9, allowed the defendants' motion based on res judicata and dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion. The plaintiff ap­pealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Estoppel - Topic 379

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel - See paragraphs 24 to 30.

Estoppel - Topic 380

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters in issue - The plaintiff brought an action for a declaration that its use of enalapril maleate did not infringe the defendants' patent - A motions judge allowed the defendants' motion for sum­mary judgment based on res judicata (issue estoppel), holding that the issues in the action had already been decided in a final 1995 Federal Court of Appeal judgment involving the same parties and substantially the same facts - The plaintiff appealed - He argued that res judicata did not apply because this action involved a different question to be decided - Alternatively, he argued that res judicata was vitiated by special circumstances (a subsequent change in the law) - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the arguments and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal - See paragraphs 31 to 48.

Estoppel - Topic 380

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters in issue - [See Estoppel - Topic 379 ].

Estoppel - Topic 381.1

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In intellectual property proceedings - [See first Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 379 and first Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Estoppel - Topic 398

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Exceptions - Special circumstances - [See Estoppel - Topic 379 and first Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Cases Noticed:

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1995), 180 N.R. 373; 60 C.P.R.(3d) 356 (F.C.A.), reving. in part (1994), 88 F.T.R. 260; 59 C.P.R.(3d) 133 (T.D.), leave to appeal denied (1995), 198 N.R. 238 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; 227 N.R. 201; 80 C.P.R.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 2].

Rocois Construction Inc. v. Dominion Ready Mix Inc. et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 440; 112 N.R. 241; 31 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 19].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 24].

Doering v. Grandview (Town), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621; 7 N.R. 299; [1976] 1 W.W.R. 388, refd to. [para. 24].

Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v. Rayner and Keeler Ltd. et al. (No. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 853; [1966] 2 All E.R. 536 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

Fidelitas Shipping Co. v. V/O Exportchleb, [1966] 1 Q.B. 630 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (1999), 5 C.P.R.(4th) 363 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation, [1926] A.C. 155 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Minott v. O'Shanter Development Co. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 1; 42 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Duhamel (1982), 33 A.R. 271 (C.A.), affd. [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 251; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 92, refd to. [para. 26].

Iron et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety) et al., [1993] 6 W.W.R. 1; 109 Sask.R. 49; 42 W.A.C. 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Maynard v. Maynard, [1951] S.C.R. 346, refd to. [para. 28].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Naken et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 72; 46 N.R. 139, refd to. [para. 30].

Arnold v. National Westminster Bank plc, [1991] 2 A.C. 93 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

Betts v. Willmott (1871), L.R. 6 Ch. 245, refd to. [para. 39].

Badish Anlin und Soda Fabrik v. Isler, [1906] 1 Ch. 605, refd to. [para. 39].

Gillette v. Rae (1909), 1 O.W.N. 448 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

National Photograph Co. Australia Ltd. v. Menck, [1911] A.C. 336 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 47].

Pawar v. Canada, [1999] 1 F.C. 158 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 247 N.R. 271 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 257 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Warner-Lambert Co. et al. v. Concord Confections Inc. (2001), 201 F.T.R. 270 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Wetzel v. Canada, [2000] F.C.J. No. 155 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lange, The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada (2000), p. 78 [para. 27].

Counsel:

H.B. Radomski and Nando DeLuca, for the appellant;

G. Alexander Macklin, Q.C., and Constance To, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Goodmans, Toronto, Ontario, for the ap­pellant;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 11, 2002, before Stone, Sharlow and Malone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Malone, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 28, 2002.