Canada: Federal Court Of Appeal Updates The Law Of Section 8 Damages

On March 14, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its highly anticipated decisions1 concerning claims by Teva and Apotex for damages pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.  These claims followed prohibition proceedings involving Apotex and Teva related to generic versions of ramipril, marketed by Sanofi as ALTACE®.

Section 8 damages are calculated by considering the generic manufacturer's loss in a hypothetical world where it starts selling without the delay occasioned by the Regulations.  In a trilogy of trial judgments issued in May 2012,2 the trial judge provided guidance for the hypothetical world calculation and addressed Sanofi's challenges to the validity of section 8.

The Court of Appeal grappled with the unique facts presented by the appeals and ultimately dismissed all but one appeal.  The successful appeal varied one trial judgment to exclude a generic competitor from Apotex's hypothetical market and thus increase Apotex's claim. The appellate decisions are summarized below.  Among the Court's more notable findings are the following:

  • both generic claimants and generic competitors are subject to the Regulations in the hypothetical world, except for the sole purpose of determining the start date of the period of liability.  Majority and dissenting reasons on this issue recognized that this approach could serve to inflate each generic claimant's hypothetical market share thus providing a potential windfall to the generics beyond the loss they suffered during the period of liability;
  • as they are subject to the Regulations, generic claimants will send Notices of Allegation to address patents listed against the drugs they seek to copy thus providing notice to innovators of their impending market entry.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal has largely done away with the notion that the innovator would be taken by surprise by a generic launch in the usual circumstances;
  • generic claimants will be subject to a reduction in revenues for "ramp-up" in the hypothetical world.  Such ramp-up cannot be discounted on the basis that the generic also suffered a ramp-up in the real world; and
  • section 8 maypermit generic claimants to be compensated for sales directed to indications for which they did not seek approval notwithstanding patents which the generics did not address.  The Court noted that such sales may be precluded where the facts so justify.

The Apotex Liability Appeal: Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2014 FCA 68

In the Apotex Liability Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal was divided.  A lengthy dissent (from Justice Mainville) was issued along with the majority's reasons (penned by Justice Sharlow, with Justice Pelletier concurring).

Key findings of the majority include:

  • The NOC Regulations generally apply to both the generic claimant and generic competition in the hypothetical world:  The majority rejected the argument that Apotex and competing generics would enter the hypothetical world free of the constraints of the Regulations.  Rather, the majority held that the Regulations are to be disregarded only for the specific purpose of determining the start date of the liability period. Thus, in contrast to prior Federal Court decisions, the Regulationsexist for all generics including the generic claimant in the hypothetical world.  In the circumstances of multiple section 8 claims (such as the case before the Court), the majority recognized the possibility that deciding each such claims separately could result in distinct and inconsistent hypothetical world calculations. 

The dissent emphasized that such an approach inherently leads to windfalls to generic claimants and favoured a methodology which strives to fairly compensate them in line with principles of compensatory damages.  Contrary to the majority, the dissent expressly held that, upon the deemed issuance of a NOC in the hypothetical world, other generic manufacturers should be assumed to be in a position to receive a NOC subject only to the delays and timelines set out in the Food and Drug Regulations

  • Generic claimants serve NOAs in the hypothetical world and give notice of their hypothetical market entry:  The majority expressly held that, in the hypothetical world, Apotex would have been obliged to address the patents listed on the Patent Register against ALTACE® and to serve Notices of Allegation. Thus, even in the hypothetical world, Sanofi would have had notice that Apotex wished to come to market.  Nonetheless, the majority did not disturb the trial judge's finding that Sanofi would not have launched an authorized generic until after Apotex's hypothetical market entry.  On the facts of the case, the majority found that the launch would not have occurred until Sanofi lost its first prohibition proceeding.

As a result, the majority has largely done away with the notion of a "surprise launch" relied on by the trial judge, and referred to in subsequent jurisprudence, except possibly in unique factual circumstances where a generic could have entered the market prior to serving its NOA.  Consequently, notice of generic launch should be included in the calculation of any authorized generic, or other generic, entry in the hypothetical world.

  • Competing generics generally act in the hypothetical world as they did in the real world: The majority, overturning the trial judge, held that Teva would not have competed with Apotex in the hypothetical world. The majority found that Teva (and another generic competitor) would have sought summary dismissal, as they did in the real world, as soon as they considered they had a fair chance of success.  However, the majority concluded that Teva would have only sought summary dismissal after Apotex's period of liability. Consequently, as the sole generic, Apotex's damages claim was held to be larger than that found by the trial judge. 

It would seem that the Court did not fully address the impact of its finding that the generic claimant is deemed to be both selling product as well as simultaneously defending a prohibition proceeding.  Presumably, if the complaining generic is deemed to be selling product, then third party generics might also be deemed to act more aggressively in seeking summary dismissal. Also, the innovator would presumably act differently if the complaining generic were deemed to be selling product.

In any event, while the majority's conclusion emphasized the real world outcome of related prohibition proceedings in determining market entry of competing generics, the decision was driven by the unique factual circumstances of the case.

  • Generic claimants' "ramp-up" in the hypothetical world: The majority agreed with the trial judge's rejection of Apotex's argument that its damages should not be reduced since it was already subject to a "ramp-up" in the real world.  The majority held that section 8 limits losses incurred to the defined period of liability.  The majority did not refer to recent Federal Court jurisprudence rejecting the trial judge's approach.  However, that jurisprudence was specifically discussed and endorsed by the dissent, and thus can arguably be considered to have been rejected by the majority.

The Teva Liability Appeal: Teva Canada Limited v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2014 FCA 67

In the Teva Liability Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal split again, with Justice Mainville issuing a lengthy dissent against Justice Sharlow's reasons for the majority (with Justice Dawson concurring).  The reasons of the Court diverged on many of the same issues as in the Apotex Liability Appeal.

Of particular interest is the Court of Appeal's finding that Teva would have entered the market one year before it was deemed to enter the market in the Apotex Liability Appeal.  The majority accepted the trial judge's factual finding that Apotex would have entered the hypothetical market in the Teva Liability Appeal at the same time as Teva.  In the result, while in the Apotex Liability Appeal the majority held that Apotex would not have competed with Teva in the hypothetical world, these generics would have competed in the hypothetical world of the Teva Liability Appeal.  The apparent inconsistency may be explained by the unique factual circumstances of these cases. However, it may also be that such inconsistencies are exposed when only select facts in the real world are used to populate the hypothetical world.

The majority also accepted the trial judge's factual finding that Sanofi would have been ready to launch an authorized generic at the beginning of the liability period, one year before it did so in the real world.  Likewise, the majority reiterated its rejection of the double ramp-up argument and noted that it was not possible to reach a contrary conclusion without implicitly reversing prior jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal.

The majority also agreed with the dissent's conclusions regarding the start date of the period of liability, without specifically endorsing the dissent's reasoning.  The dissent concluded that the start date of the period of liability should be presumed to be the date on which the Minister certified that a NOC would have issued, even if such certification predates a statutory stay under the Regulations. This is subject however to the Court's discretion to displace that date in circumstances where another date is more appropriate.  Nonetheless, the dissent ultimately accepted the trial judge's finding that Teva would only have entered the market well after receiving its certification date.  Specifically, the dissent agreed that, on the facts before it, Teva had agreed to await expiry of a patent and would not have launched its generic drug prior to the expiry of that patent.

The Validity Appeal: Teva Canada Limited v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2014 FCA 69

Sanofi also raised several challenges to the validity, applicability and operability of section 8 of the Regulations, all of which were dismissed by the trial judge.  Sanofi appealed only on the question of whether section 8 can allow compensation to a generic manufacturer for lost sales attributable to indications not approved by Health Canada.  Justice Mainville, for a unanimous Court, dismissed this appeal.

In both the Apotex Liability Appeal and the Teva Liability Appeal, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that Apotex and Teva would have made sales relating to unapproved indications and that any lost sales in this regard should be taken into account when determining compensation owed under section 8. 

This conclusion was based on the trial judge's finding that, as Sanofi was not enforcing its patents for the unapproved indications in the real world, there was no reason to find that it would do so in the hypothetical world.  The Court of Appeal further rejected the argument that, as a matter of jurisdiction, section 8 cannot allow compensation to be paid for sales for unapproved indications. 

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal expressly agreed with the trial judge that section 8 damages for lost sales relating to unapproved indications may be precluded if the facts so justify.

Click here for the Federal Court of Appeal's Apotex Liability Appeal, Teva Liability Appeal and Validity Appeal.


1 Teva Canada Limited v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2014 FCA 67; Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2014 FCA 68; Teva Canada Limited v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2014 FCA 69

2 Sanofi-Aventis et al v Teva Canada Limited, 2012 FC 551; Teva Canada Limited v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2012 FC 552; Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Aventis et al, 2012 FC 553.

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.