Monsanto Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Patents et al., (1999) 172 F.T.R. 210 (TD)

• Judge: Dubé, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 24, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 172 F.T.R. 210 (TD)

Monsanto Co. v. Commr. of Patents (1999), 172 F.T.R. 210 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.157

Monsanto Company and G.D. Searle & Co. (applicants) v. The Commissioner of Patents (respondent) and Merck Frosst Canada Inc. (respondent)

(T-805-99)

Indexed As: Monsanto Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Patents et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dubé, J.

July 15, 1999.

Summary:

G.C. Searle & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc. each filed its own patent appli­cation. A Patent Office Examiner rejected Searle's claims directed at furanone com­pounds because Merck claimed them first.

The Commissioner of Patents issued a Notice of Allowance to Merck. Searle requested a reconsideration of its own patent application or, alternatively, that the matter be referred to the Patent Appeal Board. Searle applied for judicial review, seeking to quash Merck's notice of allowance. Merck applied to dismiss Searle's judicial review application, asserting, inter alia, that the notice of allowance was not a "decision" subject to review under s. 18.1 of the Feder­al Court Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, allowed Merck's application to dismiss Searle's judicial review application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3204

Judicial review - General - Agencies or tribunals subject to review - [See Courts - Topic 4021.1 ].

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals (incl. ministers) - A Patent Officer Examiner rejected Searle's patent application claims directed at furanone compounds because Merck Frosst Canada Inc. claimed them first - Merck obtained a notice of allow­ance ("notice") - Searle requested recon­sideration of its patent application and applied for judicial review to quash Merck's notice - Merck applied to dismiss Searle's judicial review application, assert­ing, inter alia, that the notice was not a "decision" for review under s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the notice was not a decision subject to judicial review by the applicant or a third party - A notice was an administrative step leading to the issuance of a patent - Searle had no locus standi to apply for judicial review regarding the notice - See paragraphs 1 to 38.

Courts - Topic 4029

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Patents of invention - [See Courts - Topic 4021.1 ].

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1113

Drugs - New drugs - Notice of allowance -Judicial review - [See Patents of Inven­tion - Topic 881 ].

Patents of Invention - Topic 881

Application for grant - Appeals or judicial review - General - A Patent Office Exam­iner rejected Searle's patent application claims directed at fura­none compounds because Merck Frosst Canada Inc. claimed them first - Merck obtained a notice of allow­ance ("notice") - Searle requested recon­sider­ation of its patent application and applied for judicial review to quash Merck's notice - Merck applied to dismiss Searle's judicial review application, assert­ing, inter alia, that the notice was not a "decision" for review under s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, held that the notice was not a deci­sion subject to judicial review by the appli­cant or a third party - The court dis­cussed the proper procedure for Searle to follow regarding reconsider­ation of its own patent decision and re­garding another party's patent application -See paragraphs 29 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Cylien, [1973] F.C. 1166 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Singh v. Canada (Secrétaire d'Etat) (1994), 82 F.T.R. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Cyanamid Agricultural de Puerto Rico Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents (1983), 74 C.P.R.(2d) 133 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Cangene Corp. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (1995), 101 F.T.R. 238; 63 C.P.R.(3d) 377 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [paras. 14, 34, foot­notes 5, 18].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1997] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; 176 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 6].

Anderson v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) et al., [1997] 1 F.C. 273; 205 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 7].

Pharmascience Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents et al. (1998), 161 F.T.R. 76 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 15, 36, footnotes 7, 19].

Bast v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 156 F.T.R. 99 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 15, 26, footnotes 8, 17].

Naredo and Arduengo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 3 F.C. 468; 132 F.T.R. 281 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 9].

Glaxo Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) and Apo­tex Inc. et al. (1990), 107 N.R. 195; 31 C.P.R.(3d) 29 (F.C.A.), affing. (1987), 16 F.T.R. 81; 18 C.P.R.(3d) 206 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 11].

Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (1986), 12 C.P.R.(3d) 438 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 11].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General and Minister of National Health and Welfare) (No. 1) (1986), 1 F.T.R. 310; 9 C.P.R.(3d) 193 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 11].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1993), 63 F.T.R. 197; 48 C.P.R.(3d) 296 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 11].

Mahabir v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 133; 137 N.R. 377 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 22].

Pfeiffer v. Redling et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 584; 116 F.T.R. 173 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 12].

Pfeiffer v. Canada (Superintendant of Bankruptcy) - see Pfeiffer v. Redling et al.

Tomlinson and Simmerman v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 108 F.T.R. 223 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 13].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd. (1981), 35 N.R. 390; 56 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 14].

Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al. (1997), 134 F.T.R. 161; 76 C.P.R.(3d) 150 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 14].

Telecommunications Workers Union v. Canadian Radio-Tlevision and Communi­cations Commission et al. (1992), 148 N.R. 78 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 15].

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; 176 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 16].

Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) - see Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al.

Lazar v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 352 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26, footnote 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1 [para. 6].

Counsel:

J. Bruce Carr-Harris and M.D. Crinson, for the applicant;

Patrick Kierans and Leigh D. Crestohl, for the respondent, Merck Frosst Canada Inc.;

No one appearing for the respondent, Commissioner of Patents.

Solicitors of Record:

Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Ogilvy Renault, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Merck Frosst Canada Inc.;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Commissioner of Patents.

This matter was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on June 24, 1999, before Dubé, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on July 15, 1999.