Bayer inc v. Apotex inc, 2020 FC 325 (Rivaroxaban*)
Proth. Tabib - 2020-03-03
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
These reasons are issued in the context of an action for patent infringement brought pursuant to s 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. In the course of hearing motions to rule on objections to discovery questions, I made a number of rulings on questions seeking “the position” of the plaintiffs (“Bayer”) on issues raised in the action. I upheld most of Bayer’s objections, on the basis that the questions improperly sought opinions or particulars of pleadings. I gave brief reasons at the hearing, but indicated that I would issue detailed reasons at a later date. The following are those reasons. ... What the defendants seek to elicit by those questions is how Bayer, through its counsel and experts, intends to interpret or put together these facts at trial to prove or argue that the patents are valid. ... Counsel’s arguments at the hearing at times appeared to reflect a common misconception amongst members of the bar to the effect that motions for particulars are seldom granted by the Court and that a party loses the right to obtain particulars as soon as it has pleaded over. That belief is correct only insofar as it applies to requests for particulars for the purpose of pleading. However, it has long been recognized that particulars may be sought at different times in the course of a proceeding, and that at each stage, they serve different needs and their availability obey different criteria.
Decision relates to:
- T-1960-18 - BAYER INC. and BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH v. TEVA CANADA LMT.
- T-2093-18 - BAYER INC. et al v. APOTEX INC.
- T-435-19 - BAYER INC. et al v. TARO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
- T-806-19 - BAYER INC ET AL. v. SANDOZ CANADA INC.