Canada: Federal Court Rejects Ramp-Up And Free Competition In Pharmaceutical Damages Claims

Last Updated: December 31 2013
Article by Christopher C. Van Barr, Kiernan A. Murphy and Alex Gloor

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018

Apotex Inc v Takeda Canada Inc, 2013 FC 1237

The Federal Court issued on December 11, 2013 its most recent decision in the evolving landscape of pharmaceutical damages claims under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations

In Apotex Inc v Takeda Canada Inc, 2013 FC 1237 (the "Decision"), the Court refused to reduce Apotex's profits due to its market entry ramp-up despite prior jurisprudence concluding otherwise.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court departed from the strict hypothetical world analysis applied in the jurisprudence to assess a generic's losses. 

The Court also held that, in this hypothetical world, the successful generic challenger is not subject to the NOC Regulations while potential competitors are, conversely, subject thereto.  The result was that Apotex benefitted both ways.

The Court also disagreed that specific non-infringement assertions in Apotex's Notice of Allegation rose to the level of an undertaking and, as such, declined to reduce or reject Apotex's damage award.

The Court did not quantify Apotex's loss, preferring to provide guidance on the primary issues in dispute. 

The impact of this Decision on future pharmaceutical damages claims is unclear given that the Court both relied on, and departed from, Federal Court decisions presently under appeal.

No Ramp-up in a Hypothetical World

While previous cases, such as Apo-ramipril1, have held that the hypothetical world ought to reflect the market entry ramp-up experienced by the generic manufacturer this Court concluded that it was a proper exercise of its discretion to disregard it.

Ramp-up, as described by the Court, is the initial period during which the generic drug is made or acquired, orders are received from customers, and the drug is shipped to those customers.  It is the period before the generic product achieves steady-state sales.  Apotex experienced ramp-up in the real world after receiving its marketing approval, and this ramp-up had been reflected in the calculations of its loss in the hypothetical world.

However, the Court held that accounting for Apotex's ramp-up in the hypothetical world constituted "double counting for the same circumstance; a disadvantage to Apotex and an advantage to Takeda." 

Referring to prior cases addressing this ramp-up, the Court held that they had focused on the second ramp-up consequences, not the "economic loss of not being able to ameliorate ramp-up which occurs inside the Relevant Period."  The Court equated the stay mandated by section 8 of the NOC Regulations to an injunction and held that section 8 is a reflection of the normal rules in civil litigation governing interlocutory injunctions.  The Court then found that "[t]he intent under the [NOC] Regulations as under injunction law is to return the enjoined party to the position it would be in if the injunction/stay had not been granted ..." 

Departing from prior case law, the Court held that the "hypothetical world exercise is not mandated by law; it is a useful tool in trying to arrive at proper compensation. It is not a formula nor is it to be rigidly applied."   Accordingly, the Court held that "whether a matter is double counted is relevant to assessing compensation. The purpose of section 8 is to provide proper compensation." 

Who is Subject to the NOC Regulations in the Hypothetical World

The parties disputed whether, which, and when generic competitors would have entered the market in Apotex's hypothetical world.  Key to this determination was (1) whether Apotex was subject to the NOC Regulations (and, as such, whether Takeda would have received notice of Apotex's market entry/Notice of Allegation); and (2) whether other generics were subject to the NOC Regulations.

On the first issue, the Court held that, "in the hypothetical world, Apotex acts without the obligations and limitations of the [NOC] Regulations".  The Court explained that, underlying the conclusion in Apo-ramipril that notice would not have been given in the hypothetical world, "is the premise that notice is part of a scheme of inter-related benefits that accrue to the first person under the [NOC] Regulations; the other benefits being the right to file a prohibition application and the 24-month stay." 

Despite being currently subject to appeal, the Court nonetheless followed Apo-ramipril and concluded that Apotex would not have given notice of its NOA.  Indeed, the Court even disregarded prior NOAs Apotex provided to Takeda, which were withdrawn and thus not successful.  As such, the Court held that, "Takeda would not have had warning of Apotex's intent to enter the market on the basis of these NOAs."

In contrast, the Court held that other generics attempting to enter the hypothetical market are subject to the NOC Regulations.  Takeda could thus not claim that all other generics, for purposes of the hypothetical world analysis, would have entered the market and diminished Apotex's market share.  The Court acknowledged that this view of the hypothetical world could result in multiple recoveries against Takeda which exceed the total of real losses but suggested that this problem could be alleviated by judicial discretion.

The result of the Court's finding is that Takeda was deemed to have been "taken by surprise" by Apotex's market entry such that its own authorized generic would have been delayed in entering the market.  Conversely, Takeda could not claim that the NOC Regulations were inapplicable to all generics, including Apotex, such that other generics would have been on the market at the relevant time.

Assertions in NOAs Must be Clear and Unequivocal to Give Rise to Enforceable Undertakings

The Court rejected Takeda's argument that damages ought to be reduced because Apotex breached an undertaking in its NOA in an underlying prohibition proceeding that it would not market its generic product for "triple therapy" which was covered by the patent at issue. 

Specifically, Apotex stated in its NOA: "nor shall our tablets be marketed or promoted to doctors, pharmacists or others to be used in combination with a Helicobacter-inhibiting anti-microbial agent or as part of a medicament package comprising said agent", and "we allege that said claims shall not be infringed since our tablets shall not be marketed or promoted to doctors, pharmacists or others to be used in any way against a Helicobacter infection..."  Takeda argued that the applications judge relied on this undertaking to find that Apotex's allegation of non-infringement was justified and thus dismiss the prohibition proceeding. 

The Court held that, "the case law does not support the proposition that a bare pleading in an NOA constitutes an enforceable undertaking. In my view, there must be more than just the allegation unless it is phrased as an undertaking. Takeda put forward no evidence that representatives of Apotex stated that the company undertook not to market or promote triple therapy." 

In so doing, the Court simultaneously elevated the evidentiary requirement to establish an undertaking, and also weakened the notice function of the NOA by suggesting that statements therein regarding future generic behaviour may not be relied on unless the word "undertaking" is used.

In this case, notwithstanding the above-noted statements in Apotex's  NOA, the Court concluded that Apotex did not actually provide an undertaking.

The Court went on to make a finding on breach if in fact an undertaking was given.  In this regard, the Court found that Apotex visibly and openly marketed its product for use in "classic triple therapy", taking no steps to prevent its generic product from being identified with triple therapy.  The Court declined however to comment on how it would exercise its discretion had an undertaking been found.

The Court's Conclusions on the Remaining Disputed Issues

The Court addressed other disputed issues as follows:

  • Burden in pharmaceutical damages proceedings: the Court held that the burden falls to the party pressing the issue.  The Court also rejected Apotex's "percentage approach" to burdens, according to which the Court would apportion probabilities to events and apply corresponding deductions to damages. The Court held that this approach added an unnecessary level of "speculative complexity" and preferred using real world circumstances as a proxy for what would have happened in the hypothetical world.
  • Apotex's share of the generic market: the Court preferred Apotex's expert evidence, despite some criticism of it, which largely determined this issue.
  • Apotex's lost revenues / pricing: the Court largely ignored the parties' expert evidence on this issue, preferring fact evidence of provincial employees associated with the Ontario, Quebec and Alberta formularies.  The Court ultimately found in the unique situation of this case that, depending on the province, Apotex would have priced its product at 60-75% of the brand's price while the sole generic on the market, and 50-63% of the brand's price upon entry of subsequent generics.
  • Inventory adjustment: due to a delay in the reporting system, the sales information received from pharmacies did not account for the initial "pipefill" of Apotex product.  The Court accepted that remedying this delay required an inventory adjustment (ie. a determination of when steady state sales would be achieved) and preferred Takeda's expert evidence, which differentiated markets of different sizes.
  • Rebates: Based on comparable rebates used for another "at risk" single sourced molecule, the Court accepted a rebate level of 8.9%, which it viewed as neither de minimis nor approaching the rate in a competitive market.  In this competitive market, the Court distinguished between purchasers of different sizes and, relying on expert evidence, accepted rebate levels of 44.7% (for pharmacy chains) and 15% (for independent and banner pharmacies).
  • Prejudgment interest: the Court held that prejudgement interest began accruing as of the date Apotex's cause of action arose, ie. the patent hold date, but applied the interest rate as of the quarter before Apotex issued


1.Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Aventis, 2012 FC 553 ("Apo-ramipril").

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions