Canada (Attorney General) v. Sandoz Canada Inc., 2015 FCA 249
Justice Noël; Justice Pelletier; Justice Rennie - 2015-11-06
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
These are appeals brought by the Attorney General of Canada from two judgments rendered by O’Reilly J. The first (2014 FC 501) allowed an application for judicial review brought by Sandoz from a decision (PMPRB-10-D2-SANDOZ) of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. The second (2014 FC 502) allowed three applications for judicial review brought by ratiopharm from two decisions of the Board (PMPRB-08-D3-ratio-Salbutamol HFA and PMPRB-08-D3-ratiopharm) and an order by the Board giving effect to the first of these decisions. The central issue in both appeals is whether the Federal Court judge properly held that Sandoz and ratiopharm fell outside of the jurisdiction of the Board as they were not “patentees” within the meaning of subsection 79(1) of the Patent Act. The Attorney General maintains that in so holding, the Federal Court Judge did not give due deference to the Board’s elaborate reasons for concluding that the respondents came within the ambit of that provision. For the reasons which follow, I would allow both appeals.
Decision relates to:
- A-302-14 - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. SANDOZ CANADA INC. which is an appeal from 2014 FC 501 in T-1616-12
- A-303-14 - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. RATIOPHARM INC. (now TEVA CANADA LIMITED) which is an appeal from 2014 FC 502 in T-1252-11