Patents
Practice
Motions in two proceedings to set aside final order made by Court, affirmed by F.C.A., on grounds subsequent order of Court requires setting aside of two earlier orders — Proceedings under consideration brought under provisions of Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, concerning drug containing omeprazole — Apotex arguing earlier prohibition orders can be reopened based on (1) Court’s continuing jurisdiction over such orders if material change in circumstances, (2) Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 399 — Subsequent judgment in another proceeding rarely, if ever, a circumstance permitting reopening of judgment in earlier proceeding — Where subsequent change in circumstances, Court reluctant to speculate as to effect on earlier event — Apotex not demonstrating product at issue in third NOC proceeding in fact same product as that considered in two earlier proceedings — Motions dismissed.
AB Hassle v. Apotex Inc. (T-1747-00, T-1878-02, 2008 FC 184, Hughes J., order dated 13/2/08, 27 pp.)