Teva Canada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2017 FC 526 (Venlafaxine*)

Justice Zinn - 2017-05-26

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

At trial, it was found that the Plaintiff had made its case for damages pursuant to section 8 of the PMNOC Regulations (see 2014 FC 248 and 2014 FC 634). On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Trial Decision relied, in part, on evidence that was not admissible for the truth of its content; it was hearsay. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and remitted the matter back to this Court to redetermine “the issue whether Teva is entitled to damages and, if so, to what extent” (see 2016 FCA 161). ... Based on the evidence recited above, and reasonable and logical inferences from that evidence, I conclude that Ratiopharm (through Alembic) would have and could have had sufficient quantities of the generic Venlafaxine product to supply the Canadian generic market in the Relevant Period, in the amounts found in the Trial Decision. The sums awarded in the initial Trial Decision and Judgment have been paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, there is no need to issue any further Judgment save to reaffirm the initial one, and to deal with the costs of the trial and this redetermination. Accordingly, I find that the determination made at trial must be reaffirmed.

Decision relates to:

  • A-186-17 - which is an appeal from this decision


Canadian Intellectual Property