Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., 2006 FC 1135

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 1135;(2006), 306 F.T.R. 56 (FC)

Sanofi-Aventis Can. v. Novopharm Ltd. (2006), 306 F.T.R. 56 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.016

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. (applicant) v. Novopharm Limited and The Minister of Health (respondents) and Schering Corporation (respondent/patentee)

(T-1965-05; 2006 FC 1135)

Indexed As: Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al.

Federal Court

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

September 25, 2006.

Summary:

Novopharm sent a Notice of Allegation (NOA) to Aventis in relation to its oral capsules of ramipril and Canadian Patent No. 1,341,206 (the '206 Patent). Novopharm's NOA alleged that the '206 Patent was invalid and it contained the same allegations of invalidity based on a lack of sound prediction which were previously held to be justified in Aventis Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (the first Aventis '206 application). Aventis brought an application pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Novopharm until after the expiry of the '206 Patent. Novopharm moved under s. 6(5)(b) of the Regulations to dismiss Aventis' application on the basis that it was redundant, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process given the decision in the first Aventis '206 application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed the motion. Novopharm appealed.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal and dismissed Aventis' application.

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1108.2

Drugs - New drugs - Notice of compliance - Prohibition order - Dismissal of application for - Novopharm sent a Notice of Allegation (NOA) to Aventis in relation to its oral capsules of ramipril and Canadian Patent No. 1,341,206 (the '206 Patent) - Novopharm's NOA alleged that the '206 Patent was invalid and it contained the same allegations of invalidity based on a lack of sound prediction which were previously held to be justified in Aventis Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (the first Aventis '206 application) - Aventis brought an application pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for an order prohibiting the issuance of a Notice of Compliance to Novopharm until after the expiry of the '206 Patent - Novopharm moved under s. 6(5)(b) of the Regulations to dismiss Aventis' application on the basis that it was redundant, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process given the decision in the first Aventis '206 application - A Prothonotary dismissed Novopharm's motion, holding that the decision in the first Aventis '206 application was not final given Aventis' pending leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - Novopharm appealed - The Federal Court allowed the appeal and dismissed Aventis' application - The Prothonotary was clearly wrong in finding that a decision was only final for the purposes of s. 6(5)(b) of the Regulations when all available appeals had been exhausted - A court order was final and binding unless and until it was reversed on appeal - In any event, leave to appeal in the first Aventis '206 application had since been denied by the Supreme Court of Canada - The court concluded that it was an abuse of process for Aventis to re-litigate the very issue that was decided in the first Aventis '206 application.

Practice - Topic 5467

Judgments and orders - Finality of judgments and orders - Judgments and orders subject to appeal - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1108.2 ].

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitute - [See Food and Drug Control - Topic 1108.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Aventis Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2005), 278 F.T.R. 1; 43 C.P.R.(4th) 161; 2005 FC 1283, affd. (2006), 349 N.R. 183; 46 C.P.R.(4th) 401; 2006 FCA 64, leave to appeal denied (2006), 358 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 1].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 12].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., [2004] 2 F.C.R. 459; 315 N.R. 175; 2003 FCA 488, refd to. [para. 16].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 18].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 18].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Dableh v. Ontario Hydro, [1994] O.J. No. 2771 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (1999), 172 F.T.R. 81; 1 C.P.R.(4th) 358 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Bayer Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al., [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 744; 85 C.P.R.(3d) 334 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

AB Hassle et al. v. Apotex et al. (2001), 204 F.T.R. 248; 12 C.P.R.(4th) 289; 2001 FCT 530, refd to. [para. 23].

AstraZeneca AB et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al., [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 879; 23 C.P.R.(4th) 213; 2002 FCT 1249, refd to. [para. 23].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck Frosst Canada Inc. et al. (1999), 236 N.R. 377; 87 C.P.R.(3d) 30 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 32; 29 C.P.R.(4th) 350; 2003 FC 1055, refd to. [para. 24].

Aventis Pharma Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2005), 283 F.T.R. 171; 2005 FC 1504, refd to. [para. 26].

Glaxo Group Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 29; 2001 FCT 16, refd to. [para. 32].

AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al., [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 819; 23 C.P.R.(4th) 378; 2002 FCT 1250, refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Patent Act Regulations (Can.), Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, sect. 6(5)(b) [para. 21].

Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - see Patent Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Gunars Gaikis, Sheldon J. Hamilton and Mark Biernacki, for the applicant;

Jonathan Stainsby and Mark Edward Davis, for the respondent, Novopharm Limited;

Anthony Creber and Cristin Wagner, for the respondent/patentee, Schering Corporation.

Solicitors of Record:

Smart & Biggar, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Heenan Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Novopharm Limited;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent/patentee, Schering Corporation.

This appeal was heard on September 5, 2006, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on September 25, 2006.