Justice Zinn - 2020-09-15
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
Before the Court are motions by the Defendants, Sandoz and Pharmascience for leave to serve and file reply reports in these matters. These motions arise in the context of a patent infringement action pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. ... I noted that a party is to put its best case forward at the first instance and is not to lie in the weeds until after the other party has responded, and then file additional evidence to bolster its case in light of the defence that has been mounted. Sandoz seeks leave to file the reply expert report of Dr. Ohlstein, and Dr. Kibbe. The Plaintiffs object to paragraphs 4-6 and 8-21 of the Ohlstein Reply, and to all of the Kibbe Reply. PMS seeks leave to file the reply expert report of Dr. Rieder, and the reply expert report of Dr. Hanessian, and the reply expert report of Dr. Laskar. The Plaintiffs object to all of the Rieder Reply and the Laskar Reply, and paragraphs 20-36 of the Hanessian Reply.
Decision relates to:
- T-503-19 - BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA CO. ET AL v. SANDOZ CANADA INC.
- T-504-19 - BRISTOL-MYERS AQUIBB CANADA CO. EL AL v. SANDOZ CANADA INC.
- T-97-19 - BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA CO. ET AL v. PHARMASCIENCE
- T-98-19 - BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA CO. ET AL v. PHARMASCIENCE INC.