Eli Lilly & Co. v. Commissioner of Patents and Novopharm Ltd., (1992) 54 F.T.R. 86 (TD)

• Judge: Rouleau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 26, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 54 F.T.R. 86 (TD)

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Patents Commr. (1992), 54 F.T.R. 86 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Eli Lilly and Company (applicant) v. Commissioner of Patents and Novopharm Limited (respondents)

(T-3109-91)

Indexed As: Eli Lilly & Co. v. Commissioner of Patents and Novopharm Ltd.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Rouleau, J.

April 15, 1992.

Summary:

After the Commissioner of Patents heard an application by Novopharm Ltd. for a compulsory licence for the production and sale of a drug patented by Eli Lilly & Co., but before a decision was made, Eli Lilly applied for an order of prohibition to prevent the Commissioner from proceeding.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application as premature.

Administrative Law - Topic 6409

Judicial review - Prohibition - Time for application - [See Patents of Invention - Topic 5628 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 5628

Compulsory licences - Licence - Granting of - Judicial review - Prohibition - After the Commissioner of Patents heard an application by Novopharm Ltd. for a compulsory licence for the production and sale of a drug patented by Eli Lilly & Co., but before a decision was made, Eli Lilly applied for an order of prohibition to prevent the Commissioner from proceeding - Eli Lilly objected to the "rule of thumb" 4% royalty which it anticipated that the Commissioner would impose, reiterating its long-standing submission that a much higher royalty was fair - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application as premature.

Practice - Topic 7167

Costs - Party and party costs - Liability for party and party costs - Litigating settled issue - After the hearing of an application for a compulsory licence, but before the Commissioner decided, the patentee applied for an order of prohibition to prevent the Commissioner from proceeding - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application as premature and stated that costs should be on an increased scale (but not on a solicitor and client basis), because the issue had long been settled - See paragraph 39.

Cases Noticed:

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Delmar Chemicals Ltd. (1964), 43 C.P.R. 93, appld. [para. 4].

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. L.D. Craig Ltd., Bell-Craig Pharmaceuticals Division (1966), 48 C.P.R. 137, appld. [para. 5].

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Frank W. Horner Ltd. (1971), 64 C.P.R. 93, refd to. [para. 23].

Keeprite Workers' Independent Union et al., Re (1980), 114 D.L.R.(3d) 162 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Blanco v. Commission des Loyers and Paxmill Corporation, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 827; 35 N.R. 585, refd to. [para. 26].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Labreque, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1057; 38 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

University of Saskatchewan v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975, et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 834; 22 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 26].

McConnell et al. v. Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Ontario Racing Commission; Ex parte Taylor (1970), 15 D.L.R.(3d) 430, refd to. [para. 26].

American Home Products Corp. v. ICN Canada Ltd. (1985), 61 N.R. 141; 5 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 27].

American Home Products Corp. v. ICN Canada Ltd. (1988), 84 N.R. 69; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 257 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 27].

American Home Products Corp. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1988), 19 C.P.R.(3d) 279 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 27].

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Genpharm Inc. (1990), 27 C.P.R.(3d) 450 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 27].

Syntex Pharmaceutical International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents and Medichem Inc. (1990), 105 N.R. 64; 28 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 27].

Imperial Chemical Industries PLC v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 126 N.R. 377; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 137 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 27].

Frank W. Horner Ltd. v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. (1983), 52 N.R. 294; 79 C.P.R.(2d) 1, appld. [para. 28].

Pfizer Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 509, appld. [para. 30].

Bayer Attorney General v. Commissioner of Patents et al. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 504, appld. [para. 31].

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Frank W. Horner Ltd. (1970), 64 C.P.R.(2d) 93, appld. [para. 34].

Novopharm Ltd. v. Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (1990), 27 C.P.R.(3d) 249, consd. [para. 37].

Apotex Inc. v. Egis Pharmaceuticals and Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 4 O.R.(3d) 321, dist. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 39.

Patent Rules, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1250, rule 118, rule 119 [para. 11]; rule 120, rule 121, rule 122, rule 126 [para. 12].

Counsel:

G.A. MacKlin, Q.C., and Emma Hill, for the applicant;

M. Ciavaglia, for the Commissioner of Patents;

J. O'Grady, Q.C., and Katherine J. Young, for Novopharm Ltd.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy and Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Commissioner of Patents;

O'Grady and Young, Ottawa, Ontario, for Novopharm Ltd.

This case was heard on March 26, 1992, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Rouleau, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on April 15, 1992.