Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Natco Pharma (Canada) Inc.,, 2026 CanLII 32117 (Olaparib*)
Associate Justice Horne - 2026-04-09
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
This is an action brought pursuant to the PM(NOC) Regulations. The defendant wants to move for summary trial, but needs leave to do so because the time and place for trial were fixed months ago. … The parties do not agree on when any summary trial should be heard, but have provided dates of availability in the event one goes ahead. Justice Fothergill is not available on any of the dates proposed by the parties, but another member of the Court’s IP Chambers is. … There are advantages to being the first generic on the market, and AstraZeneca submits that Natco is trying to “jump the queue” to have its motion for summary trial heard before the first trial in the other proceedings. I cannot agree that this is a reason to refuse to schedule a summary trial in this case. … Natco acknowledges that it may be preparing a validity report while the summary trial is pending, and that a validity report is likely to be ultimately unnecessary if the Court determines that there is no infringement. Natco is aware of that risk and is willing to take it. … I am also not satisfied that the compressed nature of PMNOC litigation is an inherent reason to refuse to schedule a summary trial. … I am satisfied that the possibility of resolving the entire proceeding by way of a determination of a discrete infringement issue, the potential associated savings of time and cost, and the potential to more efficiently use the Court’s resources, constitutes special circumstances such that Natco should be granted leave to move for summary trial after the time and place for trial have been fixed.
Decision relates to:
- T-3922-25 - AstraZeneca Canada Inc. et al. v. Natco Pharma (Canada) Inc.