AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., (2006) 354 N.R. 88 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | May 11, 2006 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2006), 354 N.R. 88 (SCC);2006 SCC 49 |
AstraZeneca Can. Inc. v. Can. (2006), 354 N.R. 88 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. NO.001
Apotex Inc. (appellant) v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc., Minister of Health and Attorney General of Canada (respondents)
Apotex Inc. (appellant) v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc., Minister of Health and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association and Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (intervenors)
(30985; 2006 SCC 49; 2006 CSC 49)
Indexed As: AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
November 3, 2006.
Summary:
Apotex filed an abbreviated new drug submission for a notice of compliance comparing its proposed drug (Apo-Omeprazole 20 mg capsules) to AstraZeneca's Losec 20 mg capsules. AstraZeneca took its Losec capsules off the market. AstraZeneca subsequently obtained a notice of compliance pursuant to a supplementary new drug submission which authorized the sale of Losec 20 mg capsules for a new therapeutic use. AstraZeneca had two patents (the new patents) added to the patent list for Losec capsules. The Minister of Health issued Apotex a notice of compliance for Apo-Omeprazole capsules without Apotex having addressed the new patents. AstraZeneca brought two judicial review applications, asserting that the Minister erred in issuing Apotex a notice of compliance without requiring that the new patents be addressed by Apotex (T-261-04) or by anyone (T-262-04).
The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 263 F.T.R. 161, dismissed the applications. AstraZeneca appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal, Sharlow, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 336 N.R. 166, allowed the appeals, set aside the decision of the Federal Court and quashed the notice of compliance that was issued to Apotex. Apotex appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and restored the Trial Division's decision.
Food and Drug Control - Topic 1105
Drugs - New drugs - Notice of compliance - Intervention on application for - Notice of allegation - In 1989, AstraZeneca obtained a notice of compliance (NOC) for its Losec 20 mg capsules - Apotex filed an abbreviated new drug submission for an NOC comparing its proposed drug (Apo-Omeprazole 20 mg capsules) to Losec 20 - AstraZeneca took Losec 20 off the market - AstraZeneca obtained an NOC pursuant to a supplementary new drug submission which authorized the sale of Losec 20 for a new therapeutic use - AstraZeneca had two patents (the new patents) added to the patent list - The Minister subsequently issued Apotex an NOC for the Apo-Omeprazole capsules without requiring a notice of allegation addressing the new patents under s. 5(1) of the Patented Medicines (NOC) Regulations - AstraZeneca challenged the decision, asserting that the reference in s. 5(1) to "another drug for the purpose of demonstrating bioequivalence" and "the other drug" against which patents were listed was a reference to Losec 20 in any of its formulations, including formulations never brought to market - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed - Section 5(1) required a patent specific analysis, i.e., a generic manufacturer was only required to address the cluster of patents listed against submissions relevant to the NOC that gave rise to the comparator drug, in this case, the 1989 version of Losec 20 - If AstraZeneca had brought to market a Losec 20 product pursuant to the later NOC's and if Apotex had referred to that modified product for the purpose of demonstrating bioequivalence, Apotex would have been required to file a notice of allegation respecting the new patents - However, AstraZeneca had not marketed any product pursuant to the subsequent NOC's and the preconditions to any obligations of Apotex under s. 5(1) were not triggered - See paragraphs 32 to 42.
Cases Noticed:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 16].
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2003] 3 F.C. 140; 300 N.R. 76; 2003 FCA 24, refd to. [para. 29].
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 30].
Statutes Noticed:
Patent Act Regulations (Can.), Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, sect. 5(1) [para. 27].
Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - see Patent Act Regulations (Can.).
Counsel:
Harry B. Radomski, Andrew R. Brodkin and Miles Hastie, for the appellant;
Gunars A. Gaikis, Yoon Kang, Nancy P. Pei and Colin B. Ingram, for the respondent AstraZeneca Canada Inc;
Peter M. Southey and Frederick B. Woyiwada, for the respondents the Minister of Health and the Attorney General of Canada;
Edward Hore and Kevin Zive, for the intervener the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association;
Patrick S. Smith and Henry S. Brown, Q.C., for the intervener Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.
Solicitors of Record:
Goodmans, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Smart & Biggar, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent AstraZeneca Canada Inc.;
Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents the Minister of Health and the Attorney General of Canada;
Hazzard & Hore, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association;
Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.
This appeal was heard on May 11, 2006, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Binnie, J., delivered the following decision for the court in both official languages on November 3, 2006.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., (2014) 470 F.T.R. 204 (FC)
...; 334 N.R. 55 ; 2005 SCC 26 , refd to. [para. 14]. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560 ; 354 N.R. 88; 2006 SCC 49 , refd to. [para. Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al. (2010), 272 O.A.C. 214 ; 78 C.C.L.T.(3d) 52 ; 2010 ONCA 872 , refd ......
-
Merck & Co. et al. v. Pharmascience Inc. et al., (2010) 368 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
...F.3d 1340 (C.A. Cir. Ct.), refd to. [para. 122]. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560 ; 354 N.R. 88; 2006 SCC 49 , refd to. [para. Apotex Inc. v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. - see AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. M-Sy......
-
Euro-Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc., [2007] 3 SCR 20
...AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302, 2005 SCC 65; AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560, 2006 SCC 49; British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co., [1986] 1 All E.R. 850; Houle v. Canadian National Bank, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 122; Wallace ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 15 ' 19, 2022)
...Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning, [1964] S.C.R. 49, AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2006 SCC 49, Apotex Inc. v. Schering Corporation, 2018 ONCA 890, Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline, 2010 ONCA 872, Peck v. Hindes (1898), 15 R.P.C. 113 (Q.B.D.), Ha......
-
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., (2014) 470 F.T.R. 204 (FC)
...; 334 N.R. 55 ; 2005 SCC 26 , refd to. [para. 14]. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560 ; 354 N.R. 88; 2006 SCC 49 , refd to. [para. Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al. (2010), 272 O.A.C. 214 ; 78 C.C.L.T.(3d) 52 ; 2010 ONCA 872 , refd ......
-
Euro-Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc., [2007] 3 SCR 20
...AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302, 2005 SCC 65; AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560, 2006 SCC 49; British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co., [1986] 1 All E.R. 850; Houle v. Canadian National Bank, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 122; Wallace ......
-
Merck & Co. et al. v. Pharmascience Inc. et al., (2010) 368 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
...F.3d 1340 (C.A. Cir. Ct.), refd to. [para. 122]. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560 ; 354 N.R. 88; 2006 SCC 49 , refd to. [para. Apotex Inc. v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. - see AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. M-Sy......
-
Solvay Pharma Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al., (2008) 323 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
... (2005), 282 F.T.R. 8 ; 43 C.P.R.(4th) 81 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 42]. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2006), 354 N.R. 88; 2006 SCC 49 , refd to. [para. Ferring Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2007), 310 F.T.R. 185 ; 55 C.P.R.(4th) 271 ; 2007......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 15 ' 19, 2022)
...Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning, [1964] S.C.R. 49, AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2006 SCC 49, Apotex Inc. v. Schering Corporation, 2018 ONCA 890, Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline, 2010 ONCA 872, Peck v. Hindes (1898), 15 R.P.C. 113 (Q.B.D.), Ha......
-
Federal Court Of Appeal Grants Minister Of Health The Right To Be Wrong
...(Health), 2014 FC 1243. 3Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26; AstraZeneca v Canada (minister of health), 2006 SCC 49. 4 See for example Takeda Canada Inc. v Canada (minister of health), 2013 FCA 5 Photocure ASA v Canada (Health), 2015 FC 959. 6 Celgene Corp v. ......
-
Attacking Divisional Patents: Is A New Approach Emerging?
...FC 621 at para. 199. 19 Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2006 FC 524. 20 See e.g. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2006 SCC 49 at para. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about y......
-
Table of cases
...145 AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), [2006] 2 SCR 560, 272 DLR (4th) 577, 2006 SCC 49 ........................................................ 198 ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd v Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), [2006] 1 SCR 140, 263 DLR (4th) 193, 2006 SCC 4 ..................
-
Patents
...Co. v. Canada (A.G.) , [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533, 2005 SCC 26; AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) , [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560, 2006 SCC 49; Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) , [1998] 2 S.C.R. 193; Food and Drug Regulations , C.R.C., c. 870, s......
-
Table of Cases
...340, 341 AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 560, 2006 SCC 49, 52 C.P.R. (4th) 145..................................... 47, 410 AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., — F.3d — , 2010 WL 4286284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .........................................................
-
Purposive Analysis
...Inc , 2012 SCC 8 at paras 38–41; Re Canada 3000 Inc , 2006 SCC 24 at para 36ff; AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health) , 2006 SCC 49 at para 12ff. Purposive Analysis 199 whether this purpose has changed in the course of subsequent amendments. In Montréal v 2952-1366 Québec Inc......