Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v Apotex Inc., 2022 FC 1262 (Rilpivirine*)

Associate Justice Horne - 2022-09-07

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

The parties generally agree that a protective order should issue, but disagree on two terms. ... The parties agree that Confidential Information (a defined term in the draft protective order) may be disclosed to up to three in-house legal counsel. Apotex asserts that the parties should also be able to disclose Confidential Information to two employees or corporate officers of the receiving party. ... The parties ... cannot agree on the number of independent consultants or outside experts. Janssen wants to cap the number at five. Apotex asserts that there should be no limitation. For the reasons that follow, a protective order in the form presented by Apotex will issue. Even assuming that the information Janssen will disclose to Apotex during the discovery process has been treated at all relevant times as confidential, and that the information is confidential in nature, Janssen has not met its onus to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that disclosure of the information on the terms proposed by Apotex could cause harm to its proprietary, commercial, and scientific interests.

Decision relates to:



Canadian Intellectual Property