Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), docket T-1258-97

Date: 19971125

Docket: T-1258-97

BETWEEN:

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.,

     -and-

     MERCK & CO. INC.,

     Applicants

     AND:

     THE MINISTER OF HEALTH,

     -and-

     NU-PHARM INC.,

     Respondents

     REASONS FOR ORDER

ROULEAU, J.

[1]      In the notice of allegation herein, the basis of the Nu-Pharm Inc. allegation of non infringement is that it will obtain Lovastatin from Apotex whose Lovastatin is made by Apotex Fermentation Inc. allegedly a non infringing process.

[2]      I have come to the conclusion that since the Apotex process has not been challenged and the process to produce Lovastatin has not yet been determined on the merits as being non infringing it would not be in the interest of justice to deny the Applicant to file the Reply

     Page: 2

Affidavit. It is submitted primarily to respond to the issue of contamination disclosed in the Affidavits of Pavagadhi, Cox and Zarow; this allegation could not have been anticipated, nor was the information available to Richard L. Monaghan when he swore his initial Affidavit.

[3]      I am aware that this process is summary and the regulations must be adhered to. The 30 month period is strict; thus the Court must suppress unnecessary interlocutory proceedings.

[4]      In the case at bar these proceedings were only indicated in June of 1997; it cannot be said that the Applicant is seeking unreasonable delay in order to further extend its protection.

[5]      This Court has jurisdiction to permit Reply Affidavits to be filed when it has found that it will not cause unreasonable delay, it will serve the interest of justice, and it may assist the Court in making its final determination and it would cause substantial prejudice to the Applicant.

     Paul U.C. Rouleau

     Judge

---

[2]     

[3]     

[4]     

[5]     

[6]     

[7]     

Order to go as asked.

Should the respondent wish to file a further reply affidavit evidence in reply to the further affidavit of Richard L. Monaghan, they should be allowed until December 15, 1997.

I make no changes to the previously Order scheduled.

[8]     

[9]     

[10]     

[11]     

[12]     

[13]     

[14]     

[15]     

[16]     

[17]     

[18]     

[19]     

[20]     

     FEDERAL COURT OF TRIAL

Date: 19971125

Docket: T-1258-97

BETWEEN:

     MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.

     -and-

     MERCK & CO. INC.,

     Applicants

     AND:

     THE MINISTER OF HEALTH,

     -and-

     NU-PHARM INC.,

     Respondents

    

     REASONS FOR ORDER

    

[21]     

[22]     

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT NUMBER:          T-1258-97

BETWEEN:                  MERCK FROSST CANADA INC.,

                     -and-

                     MERCK & CO. INC.,

                                     Applicants

                     AND:

                     THE MINISTER OF HEALTH,

                     -and-

                     NU-PHARM INC.,

                    

                                     Respondents

PLACE OF HEARING:          Montreal(Quebec)

DATE OF HEARING:          November 24^th, 1997

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      ROULEAU, J.

DATED:                  November 25^th, 1997

APPEARANCES:              Ms. J. Robinson          for Applicants

                     Mr. A.R. Brodkin          for the Respondent

                     Ms. M. Rimon          Nu-Pharm Inc.

                    

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:      OGILVY RENAULT

                     Montreal (Quebec)          for Applicants

                     GOODMAN, PHILLIPS & VINEBERG

                     Toronto (Ontario)          for the Respondent

                                     Nu-Pharm Inc.

                     George Thomson     

                     Attorney General of Canada         

                     Ottawa (Ontario)          for the Respondent

                                     The Minister of Health

[23]