Imperial Chemical Industries plc v. Apotex Inc., (1991) 126 N.R. 149 (FCA)

• Judge: Mahoney, Stone and Linden, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 27, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 126 N.R. 149 (FCA)

Imperial Chemical Ind. v. Apotex Inc. (1991), 126 N.R. 149 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (appellant) v. Apotex Inc. (respondent)

(A-660-88)

Indexed As: Imperial Chemical Industries plc v. Apotex Inc.

Federal Court of Appeal

Mahoney, Stone and Linden, JJ.A.

March 27, 1991.

Summary:

The Commissioner of Patents granted a compulsory licence and fixed a royalty. The patentee appealed on the grounds that there was no evidence on which to fix a royalty and that the licence should not have been granted, because the applicant did not com­ply with terms of the interim licence.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Patents of Invention - Topic 5745

Compulsory licences - Royalties - Fix­ing of - Evidence - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Commissioner of Patents must have evidence on which to fix a royalty, but that neither the ap­plicant for a licence nor the patentee was statutorily required to submit evidence on the royalty issue - The court suggested, however, that both would be prudent to do so.

Cases Noticed:

Smith, Kline and French Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1986), 78 N.R. 30; 12 C.P.R.(3d) 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

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

Parke, Davis & Co. v. Fine Chemicals of Canada Ltd., [1959] S.C.R. 219, consd. [para. 9].

Smith, Kline and French Laboratories Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. (1988), 82 N.R. 177; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 449 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

American Home Products v. ICN Canada Ltd. (1988), 84 N.R. 69; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 257 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Torcan Chemical Ltd. (1988), 91 N.R. 118; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 35 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, sect. 39(4), sect. 39(5) [para. 3].

Patent Rules, rule 118(1)(c)(x), rule 119, rule 134 [para. 3].

Counsel:

James D. Kokonis and Gunars Gaikis, for the appellant;

H.B. Radomski and T. Gilbert, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Smart and Biggar, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Goodman and Goodman, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This case was heard on March 19, 1991, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Mahoney, Stone and Linden, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On March 27, 1991, Mahoney, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Federal Court of Appeal: