Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al., (2006) 288 F.T.R. 161 (FC)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 28, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 288 F.T.R. 161 (FC);2006 FC 282

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex Inc. (2006), 288 F.T.R. 161 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.007

Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (plaintiffs) v. Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited (defendants)

Apotex Inc. (plaintiff by counterclaim) v. Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (defendants by counterclaim)

Apotex Inc. (plaintiff/third party claim) v. Novopharm Limited (defendant/third party claim)

(T-1697-01; 2006 FC 282)

Indexed As: Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al.

Federal Court

Aronovitch, Prothonotary

March 3, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants claiming that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs’ patents for nizatidine. The defendants defended the claim with allegations of non-infringement and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs that the patents were invalid on various grounds. The defendants moved to compel the production of the plaintiffs’ inventors’ laboratory notebooks to facilitate the examination of the inventors pursuant to Federal Court Rule 237(4).

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court allowed the motion.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8108

Practice - Discovery - Examination - Of assignor - The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants claiming that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs’ patents for nizatidine - The defendants defended the claim with allegations of non-infringement and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs that the patents were invalid on various grounds - The defendants moved to compel the production of the plaintiffs’ inventors’ laboratory notebooks to facilitate the examination of the inventors pursuant to Federal Court Rule 237(4) - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court held that laboratory notebooks were not compellable merely by virtue of the right of discovery of the inventor but on the basis of their relevance to one or more of the pleaded defences - Where, as in this case, the identity of the inventors of the patents was contested, the notebooks could be said to be relevant to those allegations and had to be produced for the purposes of discovery.

Patents of Invention - Topic 8115

Practice - Discovery - Documents - General - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 8108 ].

Practice - Topic 4573

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Documents related to or relevant and material to matters in issue - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 8108 ].

Cases Noticed:

Faulding (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia S.p.A., [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 202 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyar Rt v. Merck & Co. et al., [1995] 3 F.C. 330; 185 N.R. 88 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 2].

Pro-Vertic (1987) Inc. v. International Diffusion Consommateur S.A. (1989), 28 F.T.R. 51; 26 C.P.R.(3d) 528 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 4].

Sternson Ltd. v. CC Chemicals Ltd., [1982] 1 F.C. 350; 36 N.R. 507 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Co. et al. (1988), 25 F.T.R. 226; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 66 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 5].

Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Ltd. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153; 296 N.R. 130; 2002 SCC 77, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 8].

Beloit Canada Ltd. et al. v. Valmet Oy (1981), 60 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 9].

Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Industries Ltd. et al. (1987), 15 F.T.R. 154; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 447 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 9].

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 320; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 413 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 10].

Kirin-Amgen Inc. et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (1999), 163 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Foseco Trading AG et al. v. Canadian Ferro Hot Metal Specialties Ltd. (1991), 46 F.T.R. 81; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 35 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Wellcome Foundation Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1991), 47 F.T.R. 81; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 11].

Wellcome Foundation Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1995), 187 N.R. 284; 60 C.P.R.(3d) 135 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 11].

Aventis Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2005), 278 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 1283, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 11].

Halcon International Inc. v. Shell Transport and Trading Co. (1979), 96 R.P.C. 459 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

SKM. S.A. and another v. Wagner Spraytech (U.K.) Ltd. and others (1982), 99 R.P.C. 497, refd to. [para. 40].

Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v. VR Laboratories (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (1982), 99 R.P.C. 343 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Rules, rule 237(4) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Beverley Moore and Jay Zakaïb, for the plaintiffs;

Lindsay Hill, for the defendant, Apotex Inc.;

Jeilah Chan, for the defendant, Novopharm Ltd.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Hendersen LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

Goodmans LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant, Apotex Inc.;

Bennett Jones LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant, Novopharm Ltd.

This motion was heard on November 28, 2005, at Ottawa, Ontario, by Aronovitch, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 3, 2006.