Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al., (2004) 259 F.T.R. 238 (FC)

• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 29, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 259 F.T.R. 238 (FC);2004 FC 1038

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2004), 259 F.T.R. 238 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.021

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

(T-294-96; 2004 FC 1038)

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

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

July 27, 2004.

Summary:

Apotex commenced an action for a declaration that its manufacture and sale of enalapril tablets would not infringe Merck's patent in relation to enalapril and enalapril maleate. Merck counterclaimed for a declaration of infringement.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 219 F.T.R. 259, allowed a motion for summary judgment brought by Merck and granted a declaration of infringement of Merck's patent. The court determined that Merck was entitled to elect between damages or an accounting of profits. Apotex appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 307 N.R. 364, allowed the appeal in part. The court held, inter alia, that both parties were entitled to examinations for discovery on issues relating to remedy and they were then entitled to be heard on the question of whether Merck should be permitted to make the election.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court ordered Merck to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, which was to list all documents relevant to Merck's loss of sales and profits attributable to Apotex's infringing activities. The Prothonotary discarded as irrelevant, certain documents which Apotex sought to have included in the order. Apotex appealed from the Prothonotary's order.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Equity - Topic 1481

Equitable principles respecting relief - Clean hands doctrine - General - The Federal Court stated that for past conduct to be relevant to a refusal of equitable relief under the "clean hands" doctrine, the conduct had to relate directly to the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim - See paragraph 21.

Patents of Invention - Topic 3102

Infringement of patent - Remedies - Damages or accounting of profits - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 8115 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 8115

Practice - Discovery - Documents - General - Merck was granted a declaration that Apotex had infringed its patent in relation to enalapril and enalapril maleate - The court determined that Merck was entitled to elect between damages or an accounting of profits - The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently held that both parties were entitled to examinations for discovery on issues relating to remedy and they were then entitled to be heard on the question of whether Merck should be permitted to make the election - A Prothonotary ordered Merck to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, listing all documents relevant to Merck's loss of sales and profits attributable to Apotex's infringing activities - The Prothonotary discarded as irrelevant, certain documents which Apotex sought to have included in the order - Apotex appealed - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - Apotex's right to discovery of Merck on matters related to the grant of the equitable remedy of an accounting of profits was subject to the requirements of reasonableness and relevance.

Cases Noticed:

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1994), 88 F.T.R. 260; 59 C.P.R.(3d) 133 (T.D.), revd. in part [1995] 2 F.C. 723; 180 N.R. 373; 60 C.P.R.(3d) 356 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 230; 5 C.P.R.(4th) 1 (T.D.), varied (2003), 305 N.R. 68; 25 C.P.R.(4th) 289; 2003 FCA 234, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

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

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1995), 106 F.T.R. 99; 64 C.P.R.(3d) 456 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1996), 113 F.T.R. 267; 67 C.P.R.(3d) 463 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1997), 161 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (1997), 77 C.P.R.(3d) 541 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1998), 143 F.T.R. 161; 78 C.P.R.(3d) 376 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 293 N.R. 316 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2002), 272 N.R. 198; 84 C.P.R.(3d) 172 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (1999), 179 F.T.R. 12 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 266 N.R. 360 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 5].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 9; 11 C.P.R.(4th) 38 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 6].

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; 227 N.R. 201; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 6].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al., [2003] 1 F.C. 242; 291 N.R. 96; 19 C.P.R.(4th) 163 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied, [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 323, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 6].

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

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 303 N.R. 201; 224 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2003 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 12].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex (2003), 315 N.R. 175 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 8].

SmithKline Beecham Animal Health Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 291 N.R. 113 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kimberly-Clark of Canada Ltd. (1990), 29 C.P.R.(3d) 545 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 9].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2001), 206 F.T.R. 51; 12 C.P.R.(4th) 456 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 12].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2003), 305 N.R. 68; 227 D.L.R.(4th) 106; 25 C.P.R.(4th) 289; 2003 FCA 234, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions (4th Ed. 1969), pp. 456, 457 [para. 15].

Counsel:

Andrew Brodkin and David Lederman, for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim;

Andrew Macklin, Q.C., and Constance Too, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim.

Solicitors of Record:

Goodmans LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim.

This appeal was heard on April 29, 2004, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 27, 2004.