Background
This is an appeal by Teva and Apotex from a decision of the Federal Court allowing Taro and
-
Taro and
- the interests of justice favoured hearing the evidence and submissions of all of the parties before making ruling on claims construction and invalidity.
In a later decision, the Federal Court denied a motion by a fifth generic (
Meanwhile, Teva and Apotex appealed the decision adding Taro and
Section 6.02 of the Regulations prohibits more than just consolidation
On appeal, Teva and Apotex argued that the common trial of validity issues raised by four generics violated the rule against joinder of actions in section 6.02 of the Regulations. The Court agreed.
Following an extensive bilingual analysis of the legislation, the Court held that the prohibition on joinder of section 6 actions "captures more than just the consolidation of proceedings". It also captures other procedural arrangements that could make it less likely that a section 6 action be determined within its 24-month deadline. Here, the Court considered that hearing four generic defendants together would likely lengthen the duration of the common trial issues and delay Teva's and Apotex's trials on infringement issues.
In reaching its conclusion on this issue, the Court noted that the Regulations place the burden on the parties to move those actions as expeditiously as possible and to cooperate in "attempting to have [them] determined within the 24-month period." The Court should assist the parties in meeting this aim through case management. Although the
No entitlement to first-mover advantage in
Teva and Apotex had also argued that the Federal Court failed to consider the prejudice they would suffer as a result of the common trial order, i.e., the loss of their first-mover advantage.
The Court acknowledged that prejudice can be an important factor when deciding whether to exercise the power to consolidate actions or hear them consecutively. However, the Court confirmed that Teva and Apotex are not entitled to a first-mover advantage. Nothing in the Regulations supports the entitlement to a first-mover advantage in
The case is
Originally published
About
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.
For more information about
Law around the world
nortonrosefulbright.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
P.O. Box 53
Tel: 4162164000
Fax: 4162163930
E-mail: nrfcdigital@nortonrosefulbright.com
URL: www.nortonrosefulbright.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source