PRACTICE |
Apotex Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
A-552-02
2003 FCA 263, Pelletier J.A.
13/6/03
9 pp.
Bifurcation orders pursuant to Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 107--Appeal from order severing trial of issues of liability from issues of quantum or recovery in patent infringement action with respect to pharmaceutical product--Reason for motion for severance to determine scope not only of trial but of production of documents and oral examinations preceding it--Motions Judge of opinion bifurcation orders commonly entered into by parties, and appellants had failed to convince him usual practice should not be followed; holding would simplify trial, reduce costs--Appeal dismissed--Appeal from discretionary order of judge; Court will not intervene unless shown judge misapprehended fact or committed error in principle in deciding matter as did--Given that experienced specialist of intellectual property bar commonly consenting to make of bifurcation order, open to Judge to infer that, in general, such order may well advance just and expeditious resolution of claims--In applications for bifurcation order, onus always on applicant--Here, Judge addressed mind to proper factors; evidence herein capable of supporting making order; tactical burden then fell on appellant--As to accounting, appellant having denied it relies upon particular facts to say that respondent not entitled to accounting, trial judge can deal with question of entitlement on basis of respondent's own evidence--As to oral and documentary discovery, Motions Judge did not err in not requiring respondents to submit to it: Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2002), 19 C.P.R. (4th) 460 (F.C.T.D.)--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 107.