Proth. Tabib - 2012-06-19
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
[Note: This decision is from 2012 but only recently published online.] In the context of Teva’s action for impeachment of Canadian Patent 2,093,203 covering the drug imatinib, commercialized by Novartis under the brand name GLEEVEC, Teva brings a motion to amend its statement of claim. ... The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Apotex v Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al., 2011 FCA 34, emphasizes that when faced with a motion to amend, the Court “has the duty to consider all relevant factors” (paragraph 5). The relevant factors are not confined to whether the proposed amendments constitute a radical change to the pleadings and will result in an injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated in costs. Notably, and as per the test in Canderel Ltd. v Canada,  1 FC 3, the question of whether the amendments should be allowed “for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy” and “would serve the interest of justice” must be addressed, and requires consideration of all of the circumstances of the case (see paragraphs 14, 33 and 34 of Apotex v Bristol Myers Squibb, supra).
Decision relates to:
- T-2021-10 - TEVA CANADA LIMITED v. NOVARTIS AG