adc – Übersetzung – Keybot-Wörterbuch

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Français English Spacer Help
Ausgangssprachen Zielsprachen
Keybot 106 Ergebnisse  csc.lexum.org
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
En définitive, je suis d’avis d’accueillir le pourvoi, d’infirmer l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale et de rejeter la demande d’ordonnance d’interdiction visant à empêcher le Ministre de délivrer l’ADC demandé par Apotex.
37 In the result, I would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, and dismiss the application for a prohibition order preventing the Minister from issuing the requested NOC to Apotex.  The Minister is under no restriction from granting the NOC as requested.  The appellant shall have its costs throughout.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Il n’est pas opportun qu’une cour autorise la délivrance prématurée d’un ADC lorsque les conditions prévues par la loi n’ont pas été remplies. La cour ne devrait pourtant pas interdire au Ministre de délivrer un ADC lorsqu’elle est convaincue que ces conditions sont remplies à la date de l’audition.
Considered:  Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 132 F.T.R. 60; Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 F.C. 742, aff’d [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; referred to:  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; Smithkline Beecham Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 138 F.T.R. 310; Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 75 C.P.R. (3d) 129; Karavos v. Toronto & Gillies, [1948] 3 D.L.R. 294.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
12 Dans la lettre d’intention mentionnée, elle aussi datée du 28 avril 1993, il était indiqué que, comme Apotex ne disposait toujours pas d’un ADC lui permettant de mettre en marché la nizatidine au Canada, elle ne pouvait pas donner à Novopharm les détails de ses exigences, mais qu’elle lui communiquerait en temps utile la quantité requise et l’identité du fabricant auquel la substance devrait être achetée.
16 Meanwhile, Eli Lilly also brought a separate application in the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), seeking a declaration that Novopharm’s licence was terminated by virtue of its granting a sublicence to Apotex, contrary to the terms of the licence.  Forget J. found that that court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court--Trial Division to grant the relief sought, but, applying the convenient forum test, held that the matter ought to be decided by the Federal Court in the context of the prohibition proceedings.  Eli Lilly and Eli Lilly Canada then brought an interlocutory motion in the Federal Court to amend the originating notice of motion by adding a claim for declaratory relief.  Pinard J. dismissed the motion, stating that, in dealing with the originating notice of motion (i.e., the prohibition application), the Court had jurisdiction to make an incidental finding that the compulsory licence in question had been terminated, which would be sufficient to justify an order prohibiting the Minister from issuing a NOC.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
39.14 de la Loi sur les brevets, Novopharm avait le droit d’utiliser l’invention brevetée pour préparer ou produire un médicament -- c’est-à-dire pour fabriquer le médicament elle-même ou par l’intermédiaire de mandataires canadiens -- à l’expiration des sept années suivant la date de délivrance du premier ADC à Eli Lilly Canada.
91 Pursuant to s. 39.14 of the Patent Act, Novopharm was entitled to use the patented invention for the preparation or production of medicine -- that is, to manufacture the medicine itself or through Canadian agents -- after the expiration of seven years after the date of the issue of the first NOC to Eli Lilly Canada.  This seven-year period expired on December 31, 1994, and while Novopharm served its NOA on Eli Lilly Canada on July 30, 1993, the application was not heard until January 30, 1995.  Thus, as of the date of hearing, Novopharm was entitled to manufacture or have made the drug for its own use, for sale for consumption in Canada.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Il n’est pas opportun qu’une cour autorise la délivrance prématurée d’un ADC lorsque les conditions prévues par la loi n’ont pas été remplies. La cour ne devrait pourtant pas interdire au Ministre de délivrer un ADC lorsqu’elle est convaincue que ces conditions sont remplies à la date de l’audition.
Considered:  Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 132 F.T.R. 60; Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 F.C. 742, aff’d [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; referred to:  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; Smithkline Beecham Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 138 F.T.R. 310; Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 75 C.P.R. (3d) 129; Karavos v. Toronto & Gillies, [1948] 3 D.L.R. 294.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
et Merck & Co. ont demandé à la Cour fédérale, Section de première instance, de rendre une ordonnance interdisant au Ministre de la Santé nationale et du Bien-être social de délivrer à Apotex l’ADC demandé jusqu’à l’expiration, en 2001, du brevet de Kyorin relatif à la norfloxacine.
It is not appropriate for a court to permit the premature grant of a NOC where the statutory conditions have not been met.  Yet, the court should not prohibit the Minister from granting a NOC if it is satisfied that the conditions have been met at the date of the hearing.  If a generic producer can accurately predict the date on which the exercise of rights under a given NOC would not infringe the relevant patents and times its application for the NOC accordingly, the application should not be rejected solely on the basis that the allegation made in its support was not justified when the NOA was issued, notwithstanding that there was no possibility that the NOC could be granted on that date.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
39.11(2)c) de la Loi sur les brevets, il était interdit à Novopharm d’importer, en vertu de sa licence obligatoire, un médicament à l’égard duquel un ADC avait été délivré après le 27 juin 1986, jusqu’à l’expiration d’un délai de 10 ans après la date de délivrance de cet ADC.
88 Pursuant to s. 39.11(2)(c) of the Patent Act, Novopharm was prohibited from importing, under its compulsory licence, medicine in respect of which a previous NOC had been granted after June 27, 1986, until 10 years after the date of the issuance of that NOC.  While this section was repealed by the Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992, s. 11(1) of that Act provides that licences granted under the former s. 39 prior to December 20, 1991, continue in effect according to their terms, and ss. 39 to 39.14 of the former Act continue to apply to such licences as if those sections had not been repealed.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
93 La dernière question qui doit être tranchée en ce qui concerne le pourvoi Novopharm est de savoir si, dans le cadre d’une procédure sommaire de contrôle judiciaire relative à une demande d’ordonnance interdisant la délivrance d’un ADC, notre Cour a compétence pour accorder un jugement déclaratoire.
93 The final issue to be determined with respect to the Novopharm appeal is whether this Court has the jurisdiction, on a summary judicial review proceeding concerning an application for a prohibition order against the issuance of a NOC,  to grant declaratory relief.  Specifically, Novopharm asks that this Court declare: (1) that Eli Lilly has failed to show that the notice of allegation was not justified; (2) that Eli Lilly has failed to show that it was entitled to terminate the compulsory licence; and (3) that the supply agreement does not constitute a sublicence or a transfer of the compulsory licence from Novopharm to Apotex.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Même si Apotex avait pu acheter ce médicament et le préparer sous une autre forme pour la vente à l’exportation même sans ADC, on fait valoir que le respect de certaines exigences liées à l’exportation aurait été facilité si un ADC avait été délivré.
35 Apotex submits, in the alternative, that, even if the justification of the NOA were to be assessed as at the date on which it was issued rather than the date of hearing, Novopharm was entitled to import or manufacture bulk Norfloxacin for sale for consumption outside Canada as early as October 15, 1993. While Apotex could have purchased this medicine and reformulated it for export sales even without a NOC, it is submitted that certain requirements related to exportation would have been alleviated if the NOC had been granted.  Therefore, it is argued that the NOA was justified, at least vis-à-vis export sales, even at the date it was issued.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
34. Je conclus donc que la date appropriée pour évaluer la demande d’ADC présentée par Apotex était celle de l’audition devant la Cour fédérale, Section de première instance, soit le 14 novembre 1995.
34 Therefore, I conclude that the appropriate date for assessment of Apotex’s application for a NOC was the date of the hearing before the Federal Court--Trial Division: November 14, 1995.  As of that date, Novopharm was entitled, under its compulsory licence, to produce Norfloxacin for sale for consumption in Canada, and thus there existed a valid, non-infringing way in which Apotex could have acquired the bulk medicine required to produce the final-dosage product for which the NOC was sought.  Accordingly, it cannot be said that the allegation made by Apotex was not justified.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
À première vue, l’accord fournit à Apotex un moyen valide et n’emportant pas contrefaçon de se procurer la norfloxacine en vrac pour fabriquer le produit décrit dans l’ADA. Ainsi, il ne devrait pas être interdit au Ministre, du moins pour ce seul motif, de délivrer un ADC à Apotex.
21 Thus, the facts of this appeal do not differ materially from the facts of the companion cases, and neither, in my view, does the result.  I conclude, therefore, that the Federal Court of Appeal erred in finding the supply agreement to be invalid by reason of its actually being a sublicence.  Prima facie, the agreement does provide a valid and non-infringing way in which Apotex is able to obtain bulk Norfloxacin in order to produce the product described in the NOA.  Thus, the Minister should not, at least on this basis alone, be prohibited from issuing a NOC to Apotex.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Il n’est pas opportun qu’une cour autorise la délivrance prématurée d’un ADC lorsque les conditions prévues par la loi n’ont pas été remplies. La cour ne devrait pourtant pas interdire au Ministre de délivrer un ADC lorsqu’elle est convaincue que ces conditions sont remplies à la date de l’audition.
Considered:  Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 132 F.T.R. 60; Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 F.C. 742, aff’d [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; referred to:  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; Smithkline Beecham Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 138 F.T.R. 310; Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1997), 75 C.P.R. (3d) 129; Karavos v. Toronto & Gillies, [1948] 3 D.L.R. 294.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
6(1) du Règlement, une demande d’ordonnance interdisant au Ministre de délivrer un ADC à Apotex ou, subsidiairement, de le lui délivrer avant le 31 décembre 1997, soit dix ans après la délivrance de l’ADC à Eli Lilly Canada, qui, aux termes de l’art.
17 On July 20, 1993, Mr. Dan of Novopharm wrote to Dr. Sherman of Apotex, stating that the two companies did not have an agreement to transfer licences or to sublicence, and asking Apotex to refrain from claiming in its applications for NOCs that licences would be transferred.  He confirmed that the supply agreement contemplated that Novopharm would supply Apotex, as a third party customer, with specific licensed products, but stipulated that Novopharm never intended to create a sublicence, given that such would be “contrary to the standard conditions of all compulsory licenses”.  Dr. Sherman responded by letter the next day, stating that Apotex had never suggested that any transfer of rights or sublicensing would occur, only that Novopharm would be supplying materials to Apotex, as a third-party purchaser.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Elle a fait observer qu’une demande d’interdiction fondée sur le par. 6(1) du Règlement est une procédure de contrôle judiciaire visant à déterminer promptement s’il y a lieu de délivrer un ADC. À cet égard, elle a cité l’affaire David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc.
24 As a preliminary matter, McGillis J. considered the nature of the proceedings before the court.  She observed that an application for prohibition under s. 6(1) of the Regulations is a judicial review proceeding which is intended to determine expeditiously whether a NOC should be issued.  In this connection, she referred to David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588 (C.A.), where Strayer J.A. held that the issues to be decided in such proceedings are of a limited or preliminary nature, only for the limited purpose above stated, and that, if a full trial of validity or infringement issues is required, it is to be obtained in the usual way, by commencing an action.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
89 Un ADC relatif à la nizatidine a été délivré à Eli Lilly Canada le 31 décembre 1987. En conséquence, Eli Lilly soutient que l’ADA de Novopharm qui a été déposé le 30 juillet 1993 n’aurait pas pu être fondé avant le 31 décembre 1997, la première date à laquelle elle aurait eu le droit, en vertu de sa licence obligatoire, d’importer de la nizatidine.
89 A NOC in respect of nizatidine was granted to Eli Lilly Canada on December 31, 1987.  Accordingly, it is submitted by Eli Lilly that Novopharm’s NOA, which was issued on July 30, 1993, could not have been justified before December 31, 1997, the first date on which it would have been entitled, under its compulsory licence, to import nizatidine.  Thus, Eli Lilly argues that, even if no sublicence was granted and the termination of Novopharm’s licence was not therefore justified, Novopharm would nonetheless have infringed Eli Lilly’s patents if it had received a NOC for nizatidine, as it had no non-infringing way in which to obtain the bulk medicine.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
6(1) du Règlement, une demande d’ordonnance interdisant au Ministre de délivrer un ADC à Apotex ou, subsidiairement, de le lui délivrer avant le 31 décembre 1997, soit dix ans après la délivrance de l’ADC à Eli Lilly Canada, qui, aux termes de l’art.
17 On July 20, 1993, Mr. Dan of Novopharm wrote to Dr. Sherman of Apotex, stating that the two companies did not have an agreement to transfer licences or to sublicence, and asking Apotex to refrain from claiming in its applications for NOCs that licences would be transferred.  He confirmed that the supply agreement contemplated that Novopharm would supply Apotex, as a third party customer, with specific licensed products, but stipulated that Novopharm never intended to create a sublicence, given that such would be “contrary to the standard conditions of all compulsory licenses”.  Dr. Sherman responded by letter the next day, stating that Apotex had never suggested that any transfer of rights or sublicensing would occur, only that Novopharm would be supplying materials to Apotex, as a third-party purchaser.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
6(1) du Règlement, une demande d’ordonnance interdisant au Ministre de délivrer un ADC à Apotex ou, subsidiairement, de le lui délivrer avant le 31 décembre 1997, soit dix ans après la délivrance de l’ADC à Eli Lilly Canada, qui, aux termes de l’art.
17 On July 20, 1993, Mr. Dan of Novopharm wrote to Dr. Sherman of Apotex, stating that the two companies did not have an agreement to transfer licences or to sublicence, and asking Apotex to refrain from claiming in its applications for NOCs that licences would be transferred.  He confirmed that the supply agreement contemplated that Novopharm would supply Apotex, as a third party customer, with specific licensed products, but stipulated that Novopharm never intended to create a sublicence, given that such would be “contrary to the standard conditions of all compulsory licenses”.  Dr. Sherman responded by letter the next day, stating that Apotex had never suggested that any transfer of rights or sublicensing would occur, only that Novopharm would be supplying materials to Apotex, as a third-party purchaser.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
P‑4, et, plus précisément, le par. 5(1) du Règlement sur les médicaments brevetés (avis de conformité), DORS/93‑133, une demande d’ADC pour la préparation et la vente de comprimés de 400 mg de norfloxacine.
8 Merck argued that the NOA filed by Apotex was premature because, as at April 19, 1993, the date on which it was issued, there was no non-infringing activity possible for which a NOC was required; Novopharm could not, at that time, make or import Norfloxacin for consumption in Canada.  Alternatively, if the NOA was not premature, it was argued, then certain necessary details were missing, namely, specifics of the statutory restrictions on Novopharm’s licence and an undertaking to be bound by these restrictions.  Moreover, it was argued that the supply agreement was in reality a sublicence and therefore infringed the terms of Novopharm’s licence and justified its termination by Kyorin, or, alternatively, that the arrangement was in substance an agency agreement whereby Novopharm would function as Apotex’s agent and thus both would be carrying on unlicensed activities.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
4 Les présents pourvois concernent les deux brevets canadiens relatifs au médicament nizatidine, que possède Eli Lilly and Company («Eli Lilly»):  l’un pour le médicament lui-même, l’autre pour le procédé de fabrication du médicament. Le 31 décembre 1987, le ministère de la Santé nationale et du Bien-être social a délivré un avis de conformité («ADC») à Eli Lilly Canada Inc.
8 On November 27, 1992, Novopharm and Apotex entered into what they described as a “supply agreement”, in anticipation of proposed changes to the Patent Act, then embodied in Bill C-91.  It was expected that this bill, if passed, would both eliminate the then-existing compulsory licensing regime and threaten the existing licences and licence applications of both companies.  The agreement was drafted, apparently without the advice of counsel, by Dr. Bernard Sherman, the president of Apotex, and Mr. Leslie Dan, the president of Novopharm, and reads as follows:
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Même si Apotex avait pu acheter ce médicament et le préparer sous une autre forme pour la vente à l’exportation même sans ADC, on fait valoir que le respect de certaines exigences liées à l’exportation aurait été facilité si un ADC avait été délivré.
35 Apotex submits, in the alternative, that, even if the justification of the NOA were to be assessed as at the date on which it was issued rather than the date of hearing, Novopharm was entitled to import or manufacture bulk Norfloxacin for sale for consumption outside Canada as early as October 15, 1993. While Apotex could have purchased this medicine and reformulated it for export sales even without a NOC, it is submitted that certain requirements related to exportation would have been alleviated if the NOC had been granted.  Therefore, it is argued that the NOA was justified, at least vis-à-vis export sales, even at the date it was issued.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
39.11(2)c) de la Loi sur les brevets, il était interdit à Novopharm d’importer, en vertu de sa licence obligatoire, un médicament à l’égard duquel un ADC avait été délivré après le 27 juin 1986, jusqu’à l’expiration d’un délai de 10 ans après la date de délivrance de cet ADC.
88 Pursuant to s. 39.11(2)(c) of the Patent Act, Novopharm was prohibited from importing, under its compulsory licence, medicine in respect of which a previous NOC had been granted after June 27, 1986, until 10 years after the date of the issuance of that NOC.  While this section was repealed by the Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992, s. 11(1) of that Act provides that licences granted under the former s. 39 prior to December 20, 1991, continue in effect according to their terms, and ss. 39 to 39.14 of the former Act continue to apply to such licences as if those sections had not been repealed.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
34. Je conclus donc que la date appropriée pour évaluer la demande d’ADC présentée par Apotex était celle de l’audition devant la Cour fédérale, Section de première instance, soit le 14 novembre 1995.
34 Therefore, I conclude that the appropriate date for assessment of Apotex’s application for a NOC was the date of the hearing before the Federal Court--Trial Division: November 14, 1995.  As of that date, Novopharm was entitled, under its compulsory licence, to produce Norfloxacin for sale for consumption in Canada, and thus there existed a valid, non-infringing way in which Apotex could have acquired the bulk medicine required to produce the final-dosage product for which the NOC was sought.  Accordingly, it cannot be said that the allegation made by Apotex was not justified.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
25 Quant à la question de savoir si les allégations de non-contrefaçon que Novopharm a faites en demandant l’ADC étaient fondées, le juge McGillis a souligné que, puisque le point de vue de Novopharm était fondé sur sa licence, la question clé qui se posait était celle de l’interprétation à donner à l’accord de novembre 1992 intervenu entre Apotex et Novopharm.
25 Turning to the question of whether the allegations of non-infringement made by Novopharm in requesting the NOC were justified, McGillis J. noted that, since Novopharm’s position was premised on its licence, the key issue was the proper interpretation to be given the November, 1992 agreement between Apotex and Novopharm.  If the agreement was in substance a sublicence, then the licence would have been properly terminated by Eli Lilly, and Novopharm would have been left with no non-infringing way in which to obtain the medication for which the NOC was requested.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
25 Quant à la question de savoir si les allégations de non-contrefaçon que Novopharm a faites en demandant l’ADC étaient fondées, le juge McGillis a souligné que, puisque le point de vue de Novopharm était fondé sur sa licence, la question clé qui se posait était celle de l’interprétation à donner à l’accord de novembre 1992 intervenu entre Apotex et Novopharm.
25 Turning to the question of whether the allegations of non-infringement made by Novopharm in requesting the NOC were justified, McGillis J. noted that, since Novopharm’s position was premised on its licence, the key issue was the proper interpretation to be given the November, 1992 agreement between Apotex and Novopharm.  If the agreement was in substance a sublicence, then the licence would have been properly terminated by Eli Lilly, and Novopharm would have been left with no non-infringing way in which to obtain the medication for which the NOC was requested.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
33 Dans cette instance, Eli Lilly a prétendu que l’allégation n’était pas fondée parce que la licence que Novopharm détenait à l’égard de la nizatidine avait été annulée en raison de son attribution d’une sous-licence à Apotex et parce qu’Apotex ne disposait donc d’aucun moyen n’emportant pas contrefaçon d’obtenir de la nizatidine en vrac pour préparer les gélules visées par la demande d’ADC.
33 In this proceeding, the basis for Eli Lilly’s claim of non-justification was that Novopharm’s licence for nizatidine had been terminated by virtue of its grant of a sublicence to Apotex, and that Apotex therefore had no non-infringing way of obtaining the bulk nizatidine in order to formulate the capsules that were the subject of the NOC request.  Alternatively, it was argued that the formulation of the capsules would itself constitute an infringement of Eli Lilly’s patent rights.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
En définitive, je suis d’avis d’accueillir le pourvoi, d’infirmer l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale et de rejeter la demande d’ordonnance d’interdiction visant à empêcher le Ministre de délivrer l’ADC demandé par Apotex.
37 In the result, I would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, and dismiss the application for a prohibition order preventing the Minister from issuing the requested NOC to Apotex.  The Minister is under no restriction from granting the NOC as requested.  The appellant shall have its costs throughout.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Comme je l’ai déjà signalé, le juge Simpson a conclu en première instance que la date pertinente pour évaluer si une allégation était fondée était soit la date à laquelle elle était faite, soit le 46e jour suivant celle‑ci. Comme elle a décidé qu’à l’une ou l’autre de ces dates aucune activité n’emportant pas contrefaçon n’était possible aux termes de l’ADC, elle a rendu l’ordonnance d’interdiction demandée.
25 As I have already noted, Simpson J. found at trial that the relevant date for assessing the justification of an allegation was either the date on which it was made or the 46th day thereafter.  Accordingly, because she found that, as at either of these dates, no non-infringing activity was possible under the NOC, she granted the requested order of prohibition.  However, she offered no specific reasons in support of her conclusion as to the relevant date.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
36 En conséquence, le juge McGillis a conclu qu’Eli Lilly avait établi, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, que l’allégation de non-contrefaçon d’Apotex contenue dans l’avis d’allégation n’était pas fondée au sens du par. 6(2) du Règlement. Par conséquent, elle a fait droit à la demande de contrôle judiciaire et a interdit au Ministre de délivrer un ADC à Apotex avant l’expiration des brevets d’Eli Lilly.
36 Therefore, McGillis J. found that Eli Lilly had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the allegation of non-infringement made by Apotex in its notice of allegation was not justified within the meaning of s. 6(2) of the Regulations.  Accordingly, she allowed the application for judicial review and prohibited the Minister from issuing a NOC to Apotex until after the expiry of Eli Lilly’s patents.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
En juillet 1993, Novopharm a déposé un ADA à l’appui de sa propre demande d’ADC relativement à la nizatidine, et a invoqué sa propre licence obligatoire pour dire qu’il n’y avait pas eu de violation des brevets en cause.
Nothing in the wording of the document suggested that the parties intended to grant sublicences to each other.  Rather, every indication was that they intended to establish a commercial arrangement whereby the unlicensed party would enjoy the right to require the licensed party to use its various licences for the benefit of the unlicensed party by acquiring, potentially at the direction of the unlicensed party, and subsequently reselling to the unlicensed party, various patented medicines.  While no express words of grant are required to create a sublicence, clearly the supply agreement, to have this character, must have transferred to Apotex more than simply the right to compel Novopharm to use its licence in a given way.  But there was no indication that Apotex acquired any other independent rights under the compulsory licence.  In fact, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the combined effect of certain express provisions of the agreement.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Cependant, cela ne règle pas complètement la question. Qu’en est‑il de la conclusion subsidiaire du juge Simpson que la date pertinente est le 46e jour qui suit le dépôt de l’ADA, soit la première date à laquelle l’ADC peut, aux termes de l’al.
31 However, that does not completely dispose of the matter.  What of the alternative conclusion by Simpson J. that the relevant date is the 46th day after the issuance of the NOA, the first date on which the NOC can, pursuant to s. 7(1)(d) of the Regulations, be granted if no objection is filed in the Federal Court?  To begin with, I agree both with Apotex and with Muldoon J. in Merck Frosst Canada Inc., supra, that there is nothing in the Regulations to compel the Minister to issue a NOC immediately upon the expiration of 45 days after the filing of the NOA.  Rather, s. 7(1) provides that the Minister “shall not issue” a NOC before this date; it imposes no mandatory obligation to issue the NOC on this precise date.  To hold otherwise would be to read into the Regulations a limitation which they do not contain.
1 2 3 4 5 Arrow