Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd v. Pharmascience Inc., 2026 CanLII 16262 (Trifluridine*)
Justice Pallotta - 2026-03-02
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
This motion relates to the proposed expert evidence on infringement, for a patent trial scheduled to start on February 23, 2026. ... Taiho contend that paragraphs 14-16 and 35-79 of Dr. R's responding report—which is the bulk of his non-infringement opinion—are inadmissible and should be struck. Alternatively, they seek leave to tender a proposed report from Dr. Little to reply to those paragraphs. ... Taiho contend that Dr. Z's responding report on infringement raised unanticipated issues that warrant reply. They seek leave to tender proposed reply reports from both Dr. G and Dr. M. ... While I have found that Pharmascience’s general denial of infringement does not justify striking the challenged paragraphs of Dr. R’ responding report, it is a factor in considering whether to allow reply. ... To be clear, I am not suggesting that a general denial relieves the party bearing the burden from the obligation to put forward their full case in chief. Rather, case splitting is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this case, based on the motion record before me, I find the proposed reply does not go beyond proper reply and it does not offend the principle against case splitting. ... Taiho’s motion is granted in part.
Decision relates to:
- T-1308-24 - TAIHO PHARMACEUTICALS CO., LTD. ET AL. v. PHARMASCIENCE INC.
- T-1309-24 - TAIHO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. ET AL. v. PHARMASCIENCE INC.