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

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.

Events from this Firm
8 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.

22 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.

7 Dec 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.