Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Rhoxalpharma Inc., 2002 FCT 559

Date: 20020515

Docket: T-462-02

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 559

Montreal, Quebec, May 15, 2002

Present:           Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary

BETWEEN:

                                    NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CANADA INC.

                                                                                 and

                                                                     NOVARTIS AG

                                                                                                                                                      Applicants

                                                                                 and

RHOXALPHARMA INC.

and

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH

                                                                                                                                               Respondents

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 This is a motion by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. and Novartis AG (Novartis) to compel Mr. Len Arsenault to answer a question which was objected to during his cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of RhoxalPharma Inc.'s (RhoxalPharma) motion to dismiss the application of Novartis filed under the NOC Regulations.

[2]                 In support of its motion to dismiss, RhoxalPharma filed an affidavit of Mr. Len Arsenault. Mr. Arsenault attached to his affidavit the relevant patent, the Trial Division and Court of Appeal judgments on the 100 mg capsules, the NOAs on the 100 mg and the 25 mg-50 mg capsules and the Novartis' Notice of Application in the 25 mg-50 mg case.

[3]                 Mr. Arsenault was cross-examined on May 7, 2002. During this cross-examination, counsel for RhoxalPharma objected to the following question:

At the time that the Court of Appeal hearing took place, which was November 28, 2001, had RhoxalPharma filed a new drug submission in respect to Cyclosporine for the 25 mg. capsule?

[4]                 It would appear at this juncture that the issue to be determined on RhoxalPharma's motion to dismiss is whether RhoxalPharma is correct in arguing under section 6(5) of the NOC Regulations that Novartis' application for prohibition is a redundant proceeding.

[5]                 I do not believe that the timing of RhoxalPharma's submissions before the Minister is relevant to this issue. Accordingly, the instant motion is dismissed with costs.

      Richard Morneau     

                       Prothonotary

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                              TRIAL DIVISION

Date : 20020515

Docket : T-462-02

BETWEEN:

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CANADA INC. and

NOVARTIS AG

                                                                           Applicants

and

RHOXALPHARMA INC.

and

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH

                                                                          Respondents

                                REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

                          FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                              TRIAL DIVISION

                    COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

STYLE OF CAUSE:

T-462-02

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CANADA INC. and

NOVARTIS AG

                                  Applicants

and

RHOXALPHARMA INC. and

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH

                                 Respondents

PLACE OF HEARING:Montreal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:May 13, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER OF RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY

DATED:May 15, 2002

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: