Canada: Intention Is Relevant To What "Would Have" Happened In The But-For World: Comments On The Federal Court's Redetermination In Adir V Apotex Inc

Last Updated: April 24 2018
Article by Joshua W. Spicer

In her judgment issued March 28, 2018,1 Justice Gagné provides the latest installment of Federal Court jurisprudence on the developing principles governing non-infringing alternatives (or NIAs) in the quantification of remedies for patent infringement. The decision follows from the Federal Court of Appeal sending back for redetermination the issue of the availability of non-infringing perindopril in proceedings for disgorgement of profits. Despite accepting that for a portion of the infringing period Apotex "could" have sourced non-infringing product for sale in the UK and Australia, Justice Gagné rejected that Apotex "would" have done so. Apotex had previously been found to infringe by making perindopril in Canada to supply those markets. Justice Gagné reaffirmed the court's prior judgment for the plaintiffs in the order of $60 million. 

Since the Court of Appeal's formulation in Lovastatin2 of the test for an infringer to avail itself of an NIA, the "would have" branch has proven particularly difficult to satisfy. The court's reasons in Perindopril show it is also the least settled. By way of background, "could have" concerns whether it was in fact possible to produce an NIA and relates to issues of supply, capacity and availability.  "Would have" is more subjective and looks at whether pursuing the NIA is something the infringer would have chosen to do.  As stated by Justice Stratas in Venlafaxine:

Both "would have" and "could have" are key. Compensatory damages are to place plaintiffs in the position they would have been in had a wrong not been committed. Proof of that first requires demonstration that nothing made it impossible for them to be in that position—i.e., they could have been in that position. And proof that plaintiffs would have been in a particular position also requires demonstration that events would transpire in such a way as to put them in that position—i.e., they would have been in that position.3

Given its subjective nature, the "would have" requirement can be seen to raise a conflict between condemning the decision to infringe and accurately assessing its economic impact.4 Support for condemnation exists in UK authority: "One is concerned with compensation for what the defendant has done by acting 'improperly'."5 Consistent with this authority, at the trial level in Lovastatin, the Federal Court rejected the notion that a tortfeasor could excuse its conduct on the basis of an NIA: "Tort law is not concerned with whether the defendant could or would have acted differently in a 'but for' world where no wrongful conduct occurred."6 Likewise, in Cefaclor the court rejected the relevance of a defendant's hypothetical actions: "[C]ausal connection must be determined based on an examination of the facts as they existed at the relevant time – not on those that could have existed."7            

Construction of the counterfactual world has, however, long taken into consideration the effects of legitimate non-infringing competition on sales that otherwise would have been made but for infringement.8 Eliminating non-infringing competition, on principle, that would have come from an infringer has been criticised for creating a less than accurate economic picture of what would have happened absent infringement.

In pursuit of "perfect compensation" in Lovastatin, the Court of Appeal, therefore, held that all competition in the but-for world is relevant. Both non-infringing product the defendant or any other competitors could and would have sold, and the extent lawful competition would have reduced the patentee's sales must be considered.9 Justice Dawson relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Monsanto,10 distinguishing other Canadian and UK authority and policy reasons cited by the trial judge.11She reasoned that economic logic ought to govern the most accurate representation of what would have happened:

The problem with computing lost profits without considering the availability of noninfringing alternatives is that [...] this practice renders the patentee better off than she would have been in the absence of infringement. (Analogously, ignoring noninfringing substitutes when calculating defendant's profits renders defendants worse off than they would have been, but for the infringement.)12

Similarly, in Venlafaxine the Court of Appeal later remarked:

I acknowledge that Lovastatin concerned a claim for compensatory damages for patent infringement, not a claim for damages under section 8 of the PMNOC Regulations. But in both types of claims the court's task is the same: to assess a hypothetical world where the defendant's impugned conduct did not take place. And in both the overriding principle is the same: a plaintiff is to be compensated, no more, no less...13

On the evidence in Lovastatin, Justice Dawson found that Apotex neither could have nor would have sold non-infringing lovastatin. Interestingly, given the approach rooted in economic logic she had endorsed, in rejecting the argument that Apotex would have sold non-infringing compound, Justice Dawson pointed to a number of factors tied to the infringing conduct and Apotex's knowledge, intentions and beliefs.14 However, in a but-for world in which there was no infringement, a question arises as to whether factors related to infringement are of any relevance. One could argue that with infringement scrubbed from the hypothetical landscape, the fact infringement was brazen, knowing or on a large scale and the subjective motivations, beliefs and intentions that led to infringement have no place in constructing a world where the infringer never infringed.  

Returning to Perindopril, at the outset Justice Gagné's reasoning suggests the court would exclude conduct related to infringement from its analysis of what Apotex would have done in the but-for world: "In this hypothetical world analysis, I am prevented from considering what occurred in the real world as an option (i.e., infringing by manufacturing in Canada)."15 Notably, Justice Gagné also considers the court's reasons from the appeal of her earlier decision in the Perindopril proceedings, and provides the following interpretation of Justice Dawson's discussion of the "would have" requirement:        

By linking the "would have" branch of the NIA analysis to whether there exists any impediments to the use of an NIA, Perindopril FCA seems to remove the clutter of considering the infringer's intentions, which was in fact an important part of the "would have" analysis in Lovastatin FCA. It also seems to limit the legal relevance of NIAs to a purely economic rationale. The logic behind that conclusion would therefore be that if an NIA is economically viable, then the infringer's profit is not causally attributable to the invention.16

These remarks seem to recognize that while invoking economic logic in pursuit of perfect compensation in Lovastatin, Justice Dawson may have been less than perfect in her execution when she looked to evidence of intention, which would not be relevant to a purely economic rationale. Justice Gagné appears to interpret the Perindopril appeal as clarifying the test by excluding evidence of intention from the "would have" branch. Put another way, the court appears to be saying that, despite her earlier reasons in Lovastatin, the implication of Justice Dawson's reasons in the Perindopril appeal is that evidence of an infringer's intention is not relevant. 

Justice Gagné, however, rejects this proposition. To do so she dispenses with the underlying premise in the reasons of the Court of Appeal that the question of impediment is linked to the "would have" branch:  "However, in my humble view, the notion of impediment – as in obstacle or barrier – should be linked to the 'could have' analysis, not the 'would have' analysis."17 

Having interpreted the Court of Appeal's reasons in Perindopril as foreclosing consideration of an infringer's intention in the "would have" analysis, a question, however, arises as to whether it was open for Justice Gagné to avoid application of the principle. In fact, it seems that an impediment such as lack of economic viability falls squarely in the "would have" analysis (although an impediment such as lack of a supplier is more of a "could have" issue). Regardless, Justice Gagné's reasons appear at odds with her interpretation of the Court of Appeal's decision in Perindopril.

The court then quotes from Justice Dawson's reasons for rejecting Apotex's argument that it would have sold non-infringing lovastatin in which she relied on Apotex's knowledge, intentions and beliefs related to infringement. Justice Gagné held: "Most of those comments apply here".18 Next she reviewed two recent Federal Court decisions19 said to "confirm that the infringer's intention is still a relevant factor to consider".20 She concludes: "[F]ull adherence to the NIA analytical framework still requires that the intentions, motivations and preferences of an infringing party be considered."21   

On the facts, Justice Gagné found that Apotex could have used offshore suppliers of non-infringing perindopril for part of the infringing period, but declined to find that it would have:  "I am of the view that the evidence falls short of establishing that, despite the fact that it was economically viable for Apotex to do so, it would have used one or more of the non-affiliate manufacturers to obtain perindopril API and tablets."22

The finding of economic viability would arguably satisfy Justice Gagné's comments on the Court of Appeal's no impediments test. Ultimately, however, evidence of Apotex's real world choice to manufacture in Canada—the decision that led to infringement—persuaded her that Apotex would not have done otherwise in the but-for world. "Again, Apotex's actions, motivations and preferences in the real world are instructive in drawing inferences as to what it would have done in the hypothetical world."23 Relying on evidence of Apotex's preference to manufacture at its own sites in Canada, Justice Gagné concluded: "[I]t is more likely than not that Apotex would not have used one or more of those third-party suppliers to produce non-infringing perindopril". She rejected Apotex's claim it would have employed an NIA.24

On its face, Perindopril is authority for the proposition that the intentions of an infringing party are relevant to the NIA analysis. However, in light of Justice Gagné's interpretation to the contrary of the Court of Appeal's reasons in the Perindopril appeal, the strength of the authority is arguably an open question in an area where the law continues to evolve. On the facts, it is probable the court would have arrived at a different result if it had not taken into account the evidence of Apotex's preference to manufacture in Canada, i.e. the intentions of the infringing party. Its finding the proposed NIAs would have been economically viable would appear to satisfy the "would have" requirement from a purely economic perspective.  It seems the issue of whether this is the correct approach to assess "perfect compensation" is ripe for consideration by the Court of Appeal.           

Footnotes

1 Adir v Apotex Inc, 2018 FC 346 [Perindopril]

2 Apotex Inc v Merck & Co Inc, 2015 FCA 171 [Lovastatin]

3 Pfizer Canada Inc v Teva Canada Limited, 2016 FCA 161 at para 50 [Venlafaxine]

4 J Leopore, "Non-Infringing Alternatives: Moving Beyond Condemnation to Arrive at Compensation" (2017), 33 CIPR 103

5 Gerber Gament Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd, [1995] RPC 383 at 403, 405 (Pat Ct)

6 Merck & Co Inc v Apotex Inc, 2013 FC 751 at para 54

7 Eli Lilly and Company v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 1254 at para 31

8 See e.g. AlliedSignal Inc v Du Pont Canada Inc (1998), 78 CPR (3d) 129 at paras 34, 38-40 (FCTD)

9 Lovastatin at para 50

10 Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34 [Monsanto]

11 Ibid at paras 51-72

12 Ibid at para 60, citing Thomas F Cotter, Comparative Patent Remedies: A Legal and Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press 2013) at 189-190

13 Venlafaxine at para 47 [emphasis added]

14 Ibid at paras 90-93

15 Perindopril at para 64

16 Ibid at para 68

17 Ibid at para 79

18 Ibid at para 71

19 Airbus Helicopters, SAS v Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée, 2017 FC 170; and AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2017 FC 726—notably both issued after and refer to the Court of Appeal's Perindopril decision

20 Ibid at para 72

21 Ibid at para 78

22 Ibid at para 82

23 Ibid at para 87

24 Ibid at para 92

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.

Authors
Joshua W. Spicer
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