ViiV Healthcare ULC et al. v. Teva Canada Ltd. et al., (2015) 474 N.R. 199 (FCA)

• Judge: Stratas, J.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 474 N.R. 199 (FCA);2015 FCA 33

ViiV Healthcare ULC v. Teva Can. (2015), 474 N.R. 199 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.R. TBEd. JN.014

ViiV Healthcare ULC, ViiV Healthcare UK Ltd. and Glaxo Group Limited (appellants) v. Teva Canada Limited and The Minister of Health (respondents)

(A-452-14)

ViiV Healthcare ULC, ViiV Healthcare UK Ltd. and Glaxo Group Limited (appellants) v. Apotex Inc. and The Minister of Health (respondents)

(A-453-14; 2015 FCA 33; 2015 CAF 33)

Indexed As: ViiV Healthcare ULC et al. v. Teva Canada Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Stratas, J.A.

February 2, 2015.

Summary:

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at (2014), 464 F.T.R. 66, found that the appellants' patent was not eligible for inclusion in the Patent Register under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. The appellants appealed. Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies moved for leave to intervene in the appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., dismissed the motion.

Practice - Topic 680.2

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Delay or prejudice - [See Practice - Topic 685 ].

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - The Federal Court found that the appellants' patent was not eligible for inclusion in the Patent Register under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations - The appellants appealed - Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (the "Association") moved for leave to intervene in the appeal - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Stratas, J.A., dismissed the motion - The court was not persuaded that granting the Association intervener status would introduce any different insights and perspectives into the appeal - Even if the court were persuaded that granting the Association intervener status would introduce different insights and perspectives, it would be concerned about the Association's delay in bringing its motion - The Association was well aware of this proceeding and the issues in it - The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2014 - The court had issued an order expediting the appeal - The Association filed its motion to intervene on January 13, 2015, after most of the memoranda of fact and law had been filed - The timeliness of a motion to intervene could shed light on the other factors to be considered - The court stated that "Those really concerned about a proceeding, who have much to say about it, and who are concerned that no one else will say it, proceed quickly. Here, that is not the case, and the Association has not explained its delay".

Cases Noticed:

Pictou Landing Band Council et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2014), 456 N.R. 365; 2014 FCA 21, refd to. [para. 4].

Counsel:

David W. Aitken, Marcus Klee and Scott Beeser, for the respondent, Teva Canada Limited;

H.B. Radomski, for the respondent, Apotex Inc.;

Patrick Smith and Scott E. Foster, for the proposed intervener, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.

Solicitors of Record:

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants, ViiV Healthcare ULC, ViiV Healthcare UK Limited and Glaxo Group Limited;

Aitken Klee LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Teva Canada Limited;

Goodmans LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Apotex Inc.;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, The Minister of Health;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the proposed intervener, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.

This motion was dealt with in writing, without the appearance of parties, by Stratas, J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on February 2, 2015.