Canada: Ontario Court Of Appeal Conclusively Dismisses Generic's Unjust Enrichment Arguments In Section 8 Case (Intellectual Property Weekly Abstracts Bulletin – Week Of May 18)

Last Updated: May 21 2015

Edited by Chantal Saunders , Beverley Moore and Adrian Howard

Patent  Decisions

Ontario Court of Appeal Conclusively Dismisses Generic's Unjust Enrichment Arguments in Section 8 Case
Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lily and Company, 2015 ONCA 305
Drug:  atomoxetine

Apotex has brought a case against Lilly pursuant to s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice ofCompliance) Regulations (the NOC Regulations). As part of the case, Apotex seeks damages pursuant to s. 8, under the Statute of Monopolies (U.K.), the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, and the Trade-Marks Act, as well as a disgorgement of Lilly's profits due to alleged unjust enrichment. This case considered an appeal of Lilly's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim.

Apotex argued that the unjust enrichment claim was different than that previously considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, as this claim alleged that due to the finding of invalidity with respect to Lilly's patent, and allegations of misrepresentation, the NOC Regulations could not be relied upon as a valid juristic reason for Lilly to be immune from an unjust enrichment claim.

The Ontario Court of Appeal considered the previous jurisprudence relating to the NOC Regulations constituting a complete code, and a juristic reason for precluding an unjust enrichment claim in the context of Apotex' arguments. However, the Court decided the issue based on the lack of "corresponding deprivation" to Apotex. The Court held that Apotex was never deprived of the portion of Lilly's revenues represented by its profits, as Apotex would never have earned those profits. The purpose of the doctrine is to reverse unjust transfers of wealth, which did not occur in this case. Furthermore, the Court held that Apotex had not properly plead the elements required for disgorgement of "profits of wrongdoing", and even if it had, this is not a case where such an extraordinary remedy is available. Apotex was asking the Court to designate it as the de facto beneficiary of Lilly's profits, but it is not the sole party with a legitimate right to deter the underlying wrong.

The Court held that s. 8 of the NOC Regulations can make a generic company whole. Furthermore, a fundamental principle of tort law is that the wronged person is compensated for the full amount of loss, but no more. Thus, Apotex' appeal was dismissed.

Allegations of Obviousness of Three Patents Found Justified
Takeda Canada Inc. v. Canada (Health), 2015 FC 570
Drug: OMNARIS®

In a proceeding pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, the Court was asked to consider three patents. Apotex alleged the patents were invalid on a number of grounds, including anticipation, obviousness, double-patenting, lack of utility, sufficiency and overbreadth.

The Court noted that Apotex tendered sufficient evidence to put the issues into play and therefore Takeda bears the burden. The Court found that the allegations of obviousness with respect to the three patents were justified, finding that the inventive concept and the relevant art, taken as a whole, were co-extensive. As a result, there was no gap to bridge. The Court then also noted that even if there had been gaps between the prior art and the inventive concepts of each of the three patents, no inventive steps would have been necessary to bridge the gap. Takeda's application was dismissed with costs.

Court of Appeal Raises Issues of construction and medical treatment that should be considered by a Higher Court in Future Cases
Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company v. Bayer Inc., 2015 FCA 116
Drug: YAZ®

Both Bayer and Cobalt appealed from the Court's judgment. Both appeals were addressed by the Court of Appeal in this decision.

The Court of Appeal began with Cobalt's appeal and noted that the construction of the patent is to be reviewed on the basis of correctness. However, the Court of Appeal offered "certain observations for the Supreme Court of Canada to consider in a future case" relating to the standard. In particular, the Court of Appeal concluded that a correctness review may not be required for consistency and certainty in the interpretation of patents based on the doctrine of comity. The Court of Appeal noted that interpretation of the specification may be done on the basis of palpable and overriding error when done with significant reliance on expert testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Cobalt's appeal relating to construction and non-infringement of one of the patents. The Court of Appeal held that, in terms of obviousness, Cobalt was inviting the Court of Appeal to re-weigh the evidence that was reviewed by the Court, which is not the standard of review. The Court of Appeal refused the appeal relating to lack of sound prediction on the basis that Cobalt changed its submissions from what was set out in the Notice of Allegation. The Court of Appeal was required to consider sufficiency and overbreadth because the Court found it was not necessary to consider these allegations as a result of its construction. Given that the Court of Appeal applied a different construction, these allegations were considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal.

With respect to Bayer's appeal relating to a different patent, the Court of Appeal denied the grounds of appeal relating to construction and found no reviewable error by the Court in finding the allegation of non- infringement was justified. In terms of the method of medical treatment allegations, the Court of Appeal noted that consideration of this allegation was not necessary because of the finding on non-infringement, but wrote that the current law, whereby methods of medical treatment are not patentable, should be fully considered by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.

Issues of Infringement of Industrial Design and Validity of Patents Remitted to Court
Zero Spill Systems (Int'l) Inc. v. Heide, 2015 FCA 115

This is an appeal from a Judgment of the Court, dismissing the action, finding no infringement, and validity of one of the three patents. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, in part, by Zero Spill.

At issue were two industrial designs. Zero Spill is a licensee of one Design, which they alleged was infringed and the Respondents own the second Design, which Zero Spill seeks to invalidate. The Court of Appeal remitted the issue of infringement back to the Court on the basis that the Court erred in respect of requiring Zero Spill to lead evidence pursuant paragraph 5.1(a) of the Industrial Design Act. The Court of Appeal found that the Court should have determined the validity of the second design but because of the expiry of the Design in the period between the Court's judgment and the hearing of the appeal, the validity is now moot and the issue was not remitted to the Court. 

Also at issue were infringement and validity of patents. The Court of Appeal considered the issue of construction raised by Zero Spill in respect of one of the patents, and rejected this ground on the basis that it must presume that all of the record was reviewed by the Court. The Court is entitled to prefer certain evidence and that can only be set aside on the basis of palpable and overriding error. The Court of Appeal also found that Zero Spill did not establish palpable and overriding error with respect to infringement. With respect to the second patent, the Court of Appeal found no errors in the construction of the patent and therefore dismissed Zero Spill's appeal on the issue of infringement. However, the Court of Appeal found that the Court's approach to anticipation and obviousness was incorrect, and these issues were remitted to the Court for determination for two patents.

Compliance with Order in the Absence of Stay Renders Appeal of Order Moot
Sherman v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2015 FCA 107

The Prothonotary ordered the production of certain documents, and the Court dismissed the appeal of this Order as moot. This is a further appeal.

The appellants appealed the Prothonotary's Order but did not seek to stay the order and indeed, produced documents to the respondents. The Court held that the appeal was moot on the basis that the Order had been substantially complied with, and refused to exercise the Court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal notwithstanding this compliance. The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error in this regard.

Trademark Decisions

Interlocutory Injunction Against Use of OMEGARED Upheld on Appeal
Jamieson Laboratories Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 2015 FCA 104

The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld an interlocutory injunction awarded in a trademark proceeding (2015 FC 215, unreported), with a small variance to provide 30 days to comply, rather than forthwith. The injunction prohibits Jamieson from using the word OMEGARED and mandates the recall of products and other materials that would offend the terms of the prohibition.

Reckitt owns and licences the mark MEGARED for supplements containing omega-3 fatty acids. Jamieson now markets omega-3 fatty acid products under the name OMEGARED, following a rebranding in January 2013 when the products were called SUPER KRILL.

The Appeal Court summarized the Federal Court decision. All the elements of the tripartite test from RJR-McDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1. S.C.R. 311 were found to be present:

  • A serious issue to be tried – finding that Jamieson had undertaken its rebranding effort with the dominant purpose of frustrating Reckitt's entry into the Canadian market.
  • Irreparable harm – finding that Reckitt's damages in the event of success in the underlying action would be impossible to calculate, given that Reckitt would never have had the chance to operate its business in the absence of Jamieson's infringing behavior. Also finding loss of goodwill and quality concerns among customers.
  • Balance of convenience – finding that Jamieson had proceeded with its rebranding activity "eyes wide open" to the possibility of legal action by Reckitt.

Although the Court of Appeal found that the motions Judge delved too far into the merits of the case, this was not fatal to the decision. On balance, the decision was upheld and only the procedural matter of its implementation was varied.

Refusal to Register Mark Upheld – No Evidence of First Use Was Adduced By the Applicant
1104559 Ontario Ltd. v. Home Hardware Stores Limited, 2015 FC 566

The applicant appealed the refusal to register HOME TEAM & DESIGN in association with sales and installation of exterior residential and commercial products, namely, windows, doors, patio doors, storm doors, eavestroughs, siding, garage doors, awnings, sunrooms, screen rooms, skylights, decks and railings.

The respondent opposed, and argued that the mark had not been used in conjunction with the services since the claimed date of first use, or of the filing date. The applicant had not filed any evidence in support of the registration. The respondent had provided web searches dating back to 2001.

No error was found in the registrar's decision, as the Federal Court held it was reasonable and supported by fact and law. The appeal was dismissed.

Opposition Board's Decision Allowing an Application for a Colour on Packaging Upheld a Second Time on Appeal
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Products Limited, 2015 FCA 111

Rothmans appeals an earlier order (2014 FC 300) upholding the rejection of its opposition to two trademark applications for an ORANGE PACKAGE DESIGN in association with manufactured products, namely cigarettes.

On appeal, it was made clear that Rothmans was not arguing the registrability of the marks had they been used as described, rather they argued that the applications are not representative of the marks as used. However, this was held to be a new argument on appeal, and so it was not unreasonable for the Board to not consider them. Despite all the arguments made, the Board's decision was upheld.

Industry News

Health Canada has published a Guidance Document: Drug Submissions Relying on Third-PartyData (Literature and Market Experience).

Health Canada has published a revised Guidance Document: Reconsideration of Decisions Issued for Human Drug Submissions.

Health Canada has announced an Information Sharing Pilot, and provided an Information package on Participation in the Information Sharing Pilot for the Evaluation of Generic Drug Applications Involving the Centralised Procedure of the European Union.

Health Canada has announced a change to the Drug Products Database Online, indicating it will include all approved but not marketed products.

Health Canada has published a Quality of Natural Health Products Guide.

About BLG

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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