ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board et al., (1996) 200 N.R. 376 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone and Robertson, JJ.A., and Gray, D.J.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 21, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 200 N.R. 376 (FCA)

ICN Pharm. v. Patented Medicine (1996), 200 N.R. 376 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc. and ICN Canada Limited (appellants/applicants) v. The Staff of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, The Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (respondents) and The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (respondent/intervenor)

(A-173-96)

Indexed As: ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone and Robertson, JJ.A., and Gray, D.J.

August 7, 1996.

Summary:

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board gave notice that it would hold a hearing under s. 83(1) of the Patent Act to determine whether ICN was selling the medicine Virazole at an excessive price. ICN challenged the Board's jurisdiction. The Board held that it had jurisdiction because ICN held two patents pertaining to Virazole. ICN applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 108 F.T.R. 190, dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction. ICN appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8521

Price and wage regulation - Patented medicine - General - The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the development of the system of regulating patents for medicines and the system of price regulation - See paragraphs 3 to 12.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8522

Price and wage regulation - Patented medicine - Jurisdiction of board - The Patent Act, s. 83(1), empowered the Pat­ented Medicine Prices Review Board to reduce the medicine prices where a pat­entee of an "invention pertaining to medi­cine" was selling the medicine at an ex­cessive price - Section 79(2) provided that "an invention pertains to a medicine if the invention is intended or capable of being used for medicine or for the preparation of medicine" - A pharmaceutical company (ICN) challenged the Board's jurisdiction to determine whether it was selling "Vira­zole" at an excessive price - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Review Board had jurisdiction - The court dis­cussed the Board's jurisdiction under ss. 79(2) and 83(1) and whether the patentee's filing of a disclaimer under s. 48 had any effect on jurisdiction - See paragraphs 45 to 76.

Trade Regulation - Topic 8523

Price and wage regulation - Patented medicine - Status or standing of board and staff - The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board determined that it had juris­diction to determine whether a pharma­ceutical company (ICN) was charging an excessive price for "Virazole" - ICN commenced judicial review proceedings challenging the Board's jurisdictional rul­ing - The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board was designated as intervenor and the Staff of the Board were designated as respondents - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed whether the Board Staff had legal status independent from that of the Board - See paragraphs 79, 80.

Words and Phrases

Medicine - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "medi­cine" as used in ss. 79(2) and 83(1) of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 - See paragraphs 38 to 62.

Words and Phrases

Pertaining - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "per­taining" as used in ss. 79(2) and 83(1) of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4 - See paragraphs 55 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1; 92 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 14 B.C.R.(2d) 217; 22 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 2].

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. 5].

Parke, Davis & Co. v. Fine Chemicals of Canada Ltd., [1959] S.C.R. 219, refd to. [para. 5].

Merck & Co. v. S. & U. Chemical Ltd. et al. (1971), 65 C.P.R. 99 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Eli Lilly and Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (1995), 101 F.T.R. 33; 63 C.P.R.(3d) 245 (T.D.), affd. (1996), 199 N.R. 4 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

AB Astra Apotekarnes Kemiska Fabriker v. Novocol Chemical Manufacturing Co. of Canada (1963), 24 Fox Pat. C. 172 (Pat. Commr.), affd. (1964), 27 Fox Pat. C. 156 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Com­missioner of Patents (1966), 33 Fox. Pat. C. 153 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Manitoba Society of Seniors Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1991), 70 Man.R.(2d) 141; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 66 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 159; 30 W.A.C. 159; 45 C.P.R.(3d) 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Horner (Frank W.) Ltd. v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. (1983), 52 N.R. 294; 79 C.P.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Northern Electric Co. v. Brown's Theatres Ltd., [1940] Ex. C.R. 36, affd., [1941] S.C.R. 224, refd to. [para. 63].

TRW Inc. v. Walbar of Canada Inc. (1991), 132 N.R. 161; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 176 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Monsanto Co. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1108; 28 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 63].

Dableh v. Ontario Hydro (1996), 199 N.R. 57 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Monsanto Co. v. Commissioner of Patents (1976), 13 N.R. 56; 28 C.P.R.(2d) 118 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Trubenizing Process Corp. v. Forsythe (John) Ltd., [1942] O.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Genentech Canada Inc., Re (1992), 44 C.P.R.(3d) 316 (P.M.P.R.B.), refd to. [para. 72].

Canadian Celanese Ltd. v. B.V.D. Co. (1939), 56 R.P.C. 122 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Eli Lilly and Co. et al. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. et al. (1996), 199 N.R. 185 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 19 [para. 79]; sect. 39(4) [paras. 5, 58]; sect. 48(1), sect. 48(4) [para. 69]; sect. 79(2), sect. 83(1) [para. 1]; sect. 86(2), sect. 94(1), sect. 94(3), sect. 96(2) [para. 79].

Patent Act Regulations (Can.), Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Re­gulations, SOR/93-133, sect. 2, sect. 4(2)(a) [para. 11].

Patent Act Regulations (Can.), Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Rules, rule 2 [para. 79].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Government of Canada News Release, NR-10770\92-21, p. 3 [para. 8].

Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry (Eastman Report) (1985), pp. xviii [para. 5]; 1 [paras. 4, 5]; 2 [para. 4].

Eastman Report - see Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Phar­ma­ceutical Industry.

Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions (4th Ed. 1969), p. 49 [para. 51].

Gallini, N.T., and Trebilcock, M., Intellec­tual Property Rights and Competition Policy: An Overview of the Legal and Economic Issues (1996), generally [para. 56].

Horton, J., Pharmaceuticals, Patents and Bill C-91: The Historical Perspective (1993), 10 C.I.P.R. 145, pp. 146 [paras. 4, 5]; 147 [para. 5]; 148 [para. 7]; 150, 151, 152, 153 [para. 8].

Kuharchuk, T.N., Compulsory Licensing of Medicines in Canada: Bill C-91 (June 1993), 17 Law Now 16, pp. 17 [para. 5]; 18 [para. 7].

Marusyk, R., and Swain, M., Price Control of Patented Medicines in Canada (1993), 10 C.I.P.R. 159, pp. 160 [paras. 6, 7]; 162 [para. 8].

Mathewson, F., The Law and Economics of Competition Policy (1990), pp. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 [para. 56].

Takach, G.F., Patents: A Canadian Com­pendium of Law and Practice (1993), p. 114 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Alfred S. Schorr and Joseph Etigson, for the appellants;

Don Houston and Michael Meredith, for the respondents;

Gordon Cameron, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Alfred S. Schorr, Markham, Ontario, for the appellants;

Hughes Etigson, Thornhill, Ontario, for the respondents;

Stikeman, Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

Blake Cassels & Graydon, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on May 21, 1996, before Stone and Robertson, JJ.A., and Gray, D.J., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Robertson, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on August 7, 1996.