Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content





Date: 20000503


Docket: T-418-98



BETWEEN:

    

MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO. and

MERCK & CO., INC.


Applicants


- and -


THE MINISTER OF HEALTH and

APOTEX INC.


Respondents


REASONS FOR ORDER


O"KEEFE J.


[1]      These proceedings were commenced by the filing on March 13, 1998 of an application by Merck Frosst Canada & Co. and Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck"), for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health and Welfare ("Minister") from issuing a Notice of Compliance ("NOC") to Apotex Inc. ("Apotex") in respect of its drug formulation of the medicine simvastatin until subsequent to the expiry of various Merck patents1. The application for prohibition was brought pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations ("Regulations"): SOR/93-133, as amended.

Scheme of the Regulations

[2]      The general scheme of the Regulations is purportedly to provide for an orderly

determination of questions of patent infringement specifically concerning patented medicines. Manufacturers of drug products must obtain regulatory approval from the Minister prior to marketing the drug, which entails meeting the requirements of the Food and Drug Act and related Regulations. The Regulations state that when a first manufacturer files a new drug submission with the Minister, it shall include reference to any patents the first manufacturer holds which contain a claim for the medicine itself or a claim for the medicine when produced by a particular process. The Minister has the responsibility for maintaining a patent list:

4. (1) A person who files or has filed a submission for, or has been issued, a notice of compliance in respect of a drug that contains a medicine may submit to the Minister a patent list certified in accordance with subsection (7) in respect of the drug.


(2) A patent list submitted in respect of a drug must


(a) indicate the dosage form, strength and route of administration of the drug;

(b) set out any Canadian patent that is owned by the person, or in respect of which the person has an exclusive licence or has obtained the consent of the owner of the patent for the inclusion of the patent on the patent list, that contains a claim for the medicine itself or a claim for the use of the medicine and that the person wishes to have included on the register;

(c) contain a statement that, in respect of each patent, the person applying for a notice of compliance is the owner, has an exclusive licence or has obtained the consent of the owner of the patent for the inclusion of the patent on the patent list;

(d) set out the date on which the term limited for the duration of each patent will expire pursuant to section 44 or 45 of the Patent Act; and

(e) set out the address in Canada for service on the person of any notice of an allegation referred to in paragraph 5(3)(b) or (c), or the name and address in Canada of another person on whom service may be made, with the same effect as if service had been made on the person.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), a person who submits a patent list must do so at the time the person files a submission for a notice of compliance.

(4) A first person may, after the date of filing of a submission for a notice of compliance and within 30 days after the issuance of a patent that was issued on the basis of an application that has a filing date that precedes the date of filing of the submission, submit a patent list, or an amendment to an existing patent list, that includes the information referred to in subsection (2).


(5) When a first person submits a patent list or an amendment to an existing patent list in accordance with subsection (4), the first person must identify the submission to which the patent list or the amendment relates, including the date on which the submission was filed.

(6) A person who submits a patent list must keep the list up to date but may not add a patent to an existing patent list except in accordance with subsection (4).

(7) A person who submits a patent list or an amendment to an existing patent list under subsection (1) or (4) must certify that



(a) the information submitted is accurate; and

(b) the patents set out on the patent list or in the amendment are eligible for inclusion on the register and are relevant to the dosage form, strength and route of administration of the drug in respect of which the submission for a notice of compliance has been filed.

4. (1) La personne qui dépose ou a déposé une demande d'avis de conformité pour une drogue contenant un médicament ou qui a obtenu un tel avis peut soumettre au ministre une liste de brevets à l'égard de la drogue, accompagnée de l'attestation visée au paragraphe (7).

(2) La liste de brevets au sujet de la drogue doit contenir les renseignements suivants:

a) la forme posologique, la concentration et la voie d'administration de la drogue;

b) tout brevet canadien dont la personne est propriétaire ou à l'égard duquel elle détient une licence exclusive ou a obtenu le consentement du propriétaire pour l'inclure dans la liste, qui comporte une revendication pour le médicament en soi ou une revendication pour l'utilisation du médicament, et qu'elle souhaite voir inscrit au registre;

c) une déclaration portant, à l'égard de chaque brevet, que la personne qui demande l'avis de conformité en est le propriétaire, en détient la licence exclusive ou a obtenu le consentement du propriétaire pour l'inclure dans la liste;

d) la date d'expiration de la durée de chaque brevet aux termes des articles 44 ou 45 de la Loi sur les brevets;


e) l'adresse de la personne au Canada aux fins de signification de tout avis d'allégation visé aux alinéas 5(3)b) ou c), ou les nom et adresse au Canada d'une autre personne qui peut en recevoir signification avec le même effet que s'il s'agissait de la personne elle-même.

(3) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), la personne qui soumet une liste de brevets doit le faire au moment du dépôt de la demande d'avis de conformité.

(4) La première personne peut, après la date de dépôt de la demande d'avis de conformité et dans les 30 jours suivant la délivrance d'un brevet qui est fondée sur une demande de brevet dont la date de dépôt est antérieure à celle de la demande d'avis de conformité, soumettre une liste de brevets, ou toute modification apportée à une liste de brevets, qui contient les renseignements visés au paragraphe (2).

(5) Lorsque la première personne soumet, conformément au paragraphe (4), une liste de brevets ou une modification apportée à une liste de brevets, elle doit indiquer la demande d'avis de conformité à laquelle se rapporte la liste ou la modification, en précisant notamment la date de dépôt de la demande.

(6) La personne qui soumet une liste de brevets doit la tenir à jour mais ne peut ajouter de brevets à une liste que si elle le fait en conformité avec le paragraphe (4).

(7) La personne qui soumet une liste de brevets ou une modification apportée à une liste de brevets aux termes des paragraphes (1) ou (4) doit remettre une attestation portant que:

a) les renseignements fournis sont exacts;

b) les brevets mentionnés dans la liste ou dans la modification sont admissibles à l'inscription au registre et sont pertinents quant à la forme posologique, la concentration et la voie d'administration de la drogue visée par la demande d'avis de conformité.

[3]      When a second or generic manufacturer seeks to market a drug containing the

same medicine, it too would be required to file a submission for a NOC with the Minister. The Regulations state that if the generic wishes to compare its drug with the drug of a first manufacturer previously marketed under a NOC and in respect of which a patent list has been submitted, it must make one of several allegations in respect of the patent:


5. (1) Where a person files or has filed a submission for a notice of compliance in respect of a drug and wishes to compare that drug with, or make reference to, another drug that has been marketed in Canada pursuant to a notice of compliance issued to a first person and in respect of which a patent list has been submitted, the person shall, in the submission, with respect to each patent on the register in respect of the other drug,

(a) state that the person accepts that the notice of compliance will not issue until the patent expires; or


(b) allege that


(i) the statement made by the first person pursuant to paragraph 4(2)(c) is false,

(ii) the patent has expired,

(iii) the patent is not valid, or

(iv) no claim for the medicine itself and no claim for the use of the medicine would be infringed by the making, constructing, using or selling by that person of the drug for which the submission for the notice of compliance is filed.


(2) Where, after a second person files a submission for a notice of compliance, but before the notice of compliance is issued, a patent list or an amendment to a patent list is submitted in respect of a patent pursuant to subsection 4(4), the second person shall amend the submission to include, in respect of that patent, the statement or allegation that is required by subsection (1).

(3) Where a person makes an allegation pursuant to paragraph (1)(b) or subsection (2) the person shall

(a) provide a detailed statement of the legal and factual basis for the allegation;


(b) if the allegation is made under any of subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) to (iii), serve a notice of the allegation on the first person;

(c) if the allegation is made under subparagraph (1)(b)(iv),

(i) serve on the first person a notice of the allegation relating to the submission filed under subsection (1) at the time that the person files the submission or at any time thereafter, and

(ii) include in the notice of allegation a description of the dosage form, strength and route of administration of the drug in respect of which the submission has been filed; and

(d) serve proof of service of the information referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) on the Minister.

5. (1) Lorsqu'une personne dépose ou a déposé une demande d'avis de conformité pour une drogue et souhaite en faire la comparaison, ou faire renvoi, à une autre drogue qui a été commercialisée au Canada aux termes d'un avis de conformité délivré à la première personne et à l'égard de laquelle une liste de brevets a été soumise, elle doit inclure dans la demande, à l'égard de chaque brevet inscrit au registre qui se rapporte à cette autre drogue:

a) soit une déclaration portant qu'elle accepte que l'avis de conformité ne sera pas délivré avant l'expiration du brevet;

b) soit une allégation portant que, selon le cas:

(i) la déclaration faite par la première personne aux termes de l'alinéa 4(2)c) est fausse,

(ii) le brevet est expiré,

(iii) le brevet n'est pas valide,

(iv) aucune revendication pour le médicament en soi ni aucune revendication pour l'utilisation du médicament ne seraient contrefaites advenant l'utilisation, la fabrication, la construction ou la vente par elle de la drogue faisant l'objet de la demande d'avis de conformité.

(2) Lorsque, après le dépôt par la seconde personne d'une demande d'avis de conformité mais avant la délivrance de cet avis, une liste de brevets ou une modification apportée à une liste de brevets est soumise à l'égard d'un brevet aux termes du paragraphe 4(4), la seconde personne doit modifier la demande pour y inclure, à l'égard de ce brevet, la déclaration ou l'allégation exigée par le paragraphe (1).

(3) Lorsqu'une personne fait une allégation visée à l'alinéa (1)b) ou au paragraphe (2), elle doit :


a) fournir un énoncé détaillé du droit et des faits sur lesquels elle se fonde;


b) si l'allégation est faite aux termes de l'un des sous-alinéas (1)b)(i) à (iii), signifier un avis de l'allégation à la première personne;

c) si l'allégation est faite aux termes du sous-alinéa (1)b)(iv) :

(i) signifier à la première personne un avis de l'allégation relative à la demande déposée selon le paragraphe (1), au moment où elle dépose la demande ou par la suite,


(ii) insérer dans l'avis d'allégation une description de la forme posologique, de la concentration et de la voie d'administration de la drogue visée par la demande;

d) signifier au ministre une preuve de la signification effectuée conformément aux alinéas b) ou c).

[4]      The Regulations provide for a right of action on the part of the first manufacturer
as well as for the action available to the Court:

6. (1) A first person may, within 45 days after being served with a notice of an allegation pursuant to paragraph 5(3)(b) or (c), apply to a court for an order prohibiting the Minister from issuing a notice of compliance until after the expiration of a patent that is the subject of the allegation.

(2) The court shall make an order pursuant to subsection (1) in respect of a patent that is the subject of one or more allegations if it finds that none of those allegations is justified.

6. (1) La première personne peut, dans les 45 jours après avoir reçu signification d'un avis d'allégation aux termes des alinéas 5(3)b) ou c), demander au tribunal de rendre une ordonnance interdisant au ministre de délivrer un avis de conformité avant l'expiration du brevet visé par l'allégation.

(2) Le tribunal rend une ordonnance en vertu du paragraphe (1) à l'égard du brevet visé par une ou plusieurs allégations si elle conclut qu'aucune des allégations n'est fondée.

[5]      The Regulations also stipulate various requirements to be met prior to the ability
of the Minister to issue a NOC. The prohibitions on the Minister are outlined in section 7 of the Regulations:

7. (1) The Minister shall not issue a notice of compliance to a second person before the latest of


(a) [Repealed, SOR/98-166, s. 6]

(b) the day on which the second person complies with section 5,

(c) subject to subsection (3), the expiration of any patent on the register that is not the subject of an allegation,

(d) subject to subsection (3), the expiration of 45 days after the receipt of proof of service of a notice of any allegation pursuant to paragraph 5(3)(b) or (c) in respect of any patent on the register,

(e) subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), the expiration of 24 months after the receipt of proof of the making of any application under subsection 6(1), and

(f) the expiration of any patent that is the subject of an order pursuant to subsection 6(1).

7. (1) Le ministre ne peut délivrer un avis de conformité à la seconde personne avant la plus tardive des dates suivantes:

a) [Abrogé, DORS/98-166, art. 6]

b) la date à laquelle la seconde personne se conforme à l'article 5;

c) sous réserve du paragraphe (3), la date d'expiration de tout brevet inscrit au registre qui ne fait pas l'objet d'une allégation;

d) sous réserve du paragraphe (3), la date qui suit de 45 jours la date de réception de la preuve de signification de l'avis d'allégation visé aux alinéas 5(3)b) ou c) à l'égard de tout brevet inscrit au registre;

e) sous réserve des paragraphes (2), (3) et (4), la date qui suit de 24 mois la date de réception de la preuve de présentation de la demande visée au paragraphe 6(1);

f) la date d'expiration de tout brevet faisant l'objet d'une ordonnance rendue aux termes du paragraphe 6(1).

Background
[6]      On January 26, 1998, Merck was served by Apotex with a letter purporting to be a
notice of allegation. The letter also contained the legal and factual basis for the allegation. Apotex alleged that no claim for the medicine itself and no claim for the use of the medicine would be infringed by its making, constructing, using or selling its formulation of simvastatin.
[7]      Various proposed amendments to the Regulations were published in the Canada
Gazette Part I on January 24, 1998. Certain of these proposed amendments came into force on March 11, 1998: SOR/98-166. One of the provisions in the amendments was a clarification of the procedure to be followed by the second manufacturer upon the making of an allegation. Subsection 5(3) of the Regulations was amended to read as follows:

5.(3) Where a person makes an allegation pursuant to paragraph (1)(b) or subsection (2) the person shall     

(a) provide a detailed statement of the legal and factual basis for the allegation;

(b) if the allegation is made under any of subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) to (iii), serve a notice of the allegation on the first person;

(c) if the allegation is made under subparagraph (1)(b)(iv),

(i) serve on the first person a notice of the allegation relating to the submission filed under subsection (1) at the time that the person files the submission or at any time thereafter, and

(ii) include in the notice of allegation a description of the dosage form, strength and route of administration of the drug in respect of which the submission has been filed; and

(d) serve proof of service of the information referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) on the Minister.

5.(3) Lorsqu'une personne fait une allégation visée à l'alinéa (1)b) ou au paragraphe (2), elle doit:


a) fournir un énoncé détaillé du droit et des faits sur lesquels elle se fonde;


b) si l'allégation est faite aux termes de l'un des sous-alinéas (1)b)(i) à (iii), signifier un avis de l'allégation à la première personne;     

c) si l'allégation est faite aux termes du sous-alinéa (1)b)(iv):

(i) signifier à la première personne un avis de l'allégation relative à la demande déposée selon le paragraphe (1), au moment où elle dépose la demande ou par la suite,


(ii) insérer dans l'avis d'allégation une description de la forme posologique, de la concentration et de la voie d'administration de la drogue visée par la demande;

d) signifier au ministre une preuve de la signification effectuée conformément aux alinéas b) ou c).

[8]      Previously, the language of the Regulations was much less explicit in regards to
the timing of the service of a notice of allegation vis a vis a submission for a NOC. Subsection 5(3) originally stated as follows:

5.(3) Where a person makes an allegation pursuant to paragraph (1)(b) or subsection (2) the personal shall

(a) provide a detailed statement of the legal and factual basis for the allegation; and

(b) serve a notice of the allegation on the first person and proof of such service on the Minister.

5.(3) Lorsqu"une personne fait une allégation visée à l"alinéa (1)b) ou au paragraphe (2), elle doit:


a) fournir un énoncé détaillé du droit et des faits sur lesquels elle se fonde;


b) signifier un avis d"allégation à la première personne et une preuve de cette signification au ministre.

[9]      Also contained in the amendments to the Regulations were various transitional
provisions, one of which held that the amendments to subsection 5(3) would not apply to an allegation:

9.(1) . . . if, before the coming into force of these Regulations, it was served on the first person, if proof of that service was served on the Minister and if the first person has commenced a proceeding under subsection 6(1).

9.(1) . . . si, avant l"entrée en vigueur du présent règlement, elles ont été signifiées à la première personne, si la preuve de leur signification a été signifiée au ministre et si la première personne a présenté une demande aux termes du paragraphe 6(1).

[10]      The amendments to the Regulations also provided for a procedure to enable the
first person to gain production of the second person"s new drug submission:

6.(7) On the motion of a first person, the court may, at any time during a proceeding,

(a) order a second person to produce any portion of the submission for a notice of compliance filed by the second person relevant to the disposition of the issues in the proceeding any may order that any change made to the portion during the proceeding be produced by the second person as it is made; and

(b) order the Minister to verify that any portion produced corresponds fully to the information in the submission.

6.(7) Sur requête de la première personne, le tribunal peut, au cours de l"instance:

a) ordonner à la seconde personne de produire les extraits pertinents de la demande d"avis de conformité qu"elle a déposée et lui enjoindre de produire sans délai tout changement apporté à ces extraits au cours de l"instance;



b) enjoindre au ministre de vérifier que les extraits produits correspondent fidèlement aux renseignements figurant dans la demande d"avis de conformité.

[11]      On motion dated March 1, 1999, the applicants made a motion to this Court
pursuant to subsection 6(7) of the Regulations for production of the new drug submission. In response to the Glaxo production motion, Dr. Bernard Sherman, Chairman of Apotex, deposed in an affidavit sworn on March 5, 1999, that Apotex had not filed a new drug submission in respect of its formulation of simvastatin - the subject of its allegation - as of March 5, 1999.
Orders Sought
[12]      Merck sought the following orders in part IV of its Memorandum:
92. Merck respectfully requests that this Honourable Court grant an Order confirming and directing that the Minister is prohibited from issuing an NOC to Apotex for simvastatin until Apotex has complied with Section 5 of the Regulations, including subsection 5(3)(c)(i).
93. In the alternative, Merck respectfully requests that this Honourable Court grant an Order prohibiting the Minister from issuing an NOC to Apotex for simvastatin until the expiry of the "380 and "322 Patents.
Analysis
[13]      The critical issue to be determined is whether the amendments to the
Regulations in force March 11, 1998, apply to the present application for prohibition. Subsection 9(1) of the Regulations states that subsection 4(4) of the March, 1998 amendments (now 5(3)(c) and (d) of the Regulations) does not apply to an allegation, "if, before the coming into force of these Regulations, it was served on the first person, if proof of that service was served on the Minister and if the first person has commenced a proceeding under subsection 6(1)".
[14]      The interpretation to be given to the transitional provision was the subject of
considerable argument and dispute at the hearing of the prohibition application. Merck"s position was that all three listed events in subsection 9(1) of the amendments to the Regulations had to have occurred prior to the coming into force. There was evidence before the Court that the first two listed events, namely, service of the notice of allegation and service of proof of that service on the Minister, had occurred. However, this proceeding was not commenced until after the amendments came into force. Therefore, according to Merck, the amendments contained in paragraphs 5(b), (c) and (d) of the Regulations apply to this proceeding.
[15]      For its part, Apotex argued that the structure of the transitional provision
necessarily indicated that, while all three listed events must occur, only the service of the notice of allegation need have occurred prior to the coming into force of the amended Regulations. Apotex argues that it has met all of the requirements of the section and Merck"s procedural argument should therefore fail.
[16]      The Court has reviewed the transitional provisions contained in subsection 9(1) of
the Regulations and has concluded that all three events listed in the transitional provisions must have been satisfied before the coming into force of the amendments on March 11, 1998. As the Merck proceeding was not commenced until March 13, 1998, the requirements to meet in order to avoid the operation of the amendments were not met in this case.
[17]      In coming to this conclusion, the Court has considered the principle of statutory
interpretation set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rizzo v. Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27. In that decision, Iacobucci J., writing for the Court, outlined the following framework for statutory interpretation at pages 40 - 41:
Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation (see, e.g., Ruth Sullivan, Statutory Interpretation (1997); Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994) (hereinafter "Construction of Statutes"); Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed. 1991)), Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone. At p. 87 he states:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
Recent cases which have cited the above passage with approval include: R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 213; Royal Bank of Canada v. Sparrow Electric Corp., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 411; Verdun v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 550; Friesen v. Canada, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 103.
[18]      The Court"s reading of subsection 9(1) of the Regulations leads to the conclusion
that the clear meaning of the language used in the section indicates that all three conditions must be met before the coming into force of the Regulations. Thus, in order for the Regulations not to apply to the allegation, all the following must have occurred before the coming into force of the Regulations:
         1.      The allegation must have been served on the first person;
         2.      Proof of that service must have been served on the Minister; and
         3.      The first person must have commenced the action.
[19]      If subsection 9(1) of the amendments to the Regulations was meant to protect all

notices of allegation filed before the coming into force of the March, 1998 amendments, the Governor in Council could have simply stated that the amendments do not apply if "the notice of allegation is served on the first person prior to the coming into force of the amendments".

[20]      The Court feels fortified in its position upon reviewing the Proposed Regulatory

Text published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on January 24, 1998. The Court is, of course, using this text as an example of how the drafter of the legislation could have protected any notice of allegation that was filed before the coming into force of the March, 1998 Regulations as the proposed Regulations are, of course, not the Regulations in force. At page 147, the proposed transitional provision, then numbered subsection 8(1) read as follows:

8.(1) Subsection 3(4) does not apply to an allegation if, before the coming into force of these Regulations, it was served on the first person and if proof of that service was served on the Minister.


[21]      This is an example of how the Governor in Council could have protected all

notices of allegation filed before the coming into force of the March, 1998 Regulations. Instead, when the Regulations were made law, the transitional provision contained a further condition to be met in order to avoid the amendments, i.e. that the first person must have commenced a proceeding under subsection 6(1) of the Regulations. There is no dispute that the new drug submission was not filed when the notice of allegation was served on Merck.

[22]      And, although the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement attached to the

amendments to the Regulations is not part of the Regulations, it does speak about the purpose of the amendments:

No premature NOA: An NOA relating to non-infringement may only be served on a patentee by a generic manufacturer when or after it has filed a submission for an NOC with the Minister of Health.


[23]      The next issue to be addressed is the effect of the application of subsection

5(3) of the Regulations on the Apotex notice of allegation dated January 26, 1998.

[24]      In order to answer this question, resort must be had for the purpose of the

Regulations. A reading of the Regulations and previous case law would seem to indicate that the purpose of subparagraph 5(3)(c)(i) is to avoid the filing of premature notices of allegation. In the earlier jurisprudence of this Court, under the previous Regulations, the timing of the service of the notice of allegation was not critical. The notice of allegation could be filed before the new drug submission (see Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare (1997) 76 C.P.R. (3d) 1 (F.C.A.)). A premature notice of allegation is an allegation served before a new drug submission is filed.

[25]      As a result of all the above, it is the Court"s finding that the Apotex notice of

allegation dated January 26, 1998 is not an allegation contemplated by the Regulations as no new drug submission was filed when the notice of allegation was served. The scheme of the Regulations clearly contemplate that a notice of allegation is to be served at the time the person files the new drug submission or any time thereafter.


[26]      In Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare)

et al (1999) 87 C.P.R. (3d) 251 (F.C.T.D.), Sharlow J., as she then was, discussed the March, 1998 amendments to the Regulations and held that the notice of allegation at issue in that case was not invalid. However, the factual background in that case was different from that in the present case. Madame Justice Sharlow was "left with doubt" as to whether a new drug submission was filed before the notice of allegation was served. In the present case, the uncontroverted evidence is that as of March 5, 1999, no new drug submission had been filed with the Minister.

[27]      Madame Justice Reed also considered subparagraph 5(3)(c)(i) of the Regulations

in Hoffmann-LaRoche v. Minister of National Health and Welfare (1999) 86 C.P.R. (3d) 303 (F.C.T.D.). In that case, the notice of allegation was mailed to the first party on March 20, 1998, contemporaneously with the filing of a new drug submission. Madame Justice Reed held that the Regulations allowed for service of the notice of allegation "at the time that the person files the [new drug] submission". The Court agrees with this conclusion.

[28]      To the Court"s mind, the whole process contemplated by the March, 1998

amending Regulations contemplates that the filing of a new drug submission will precede or be effected contemporaneously with service of a notice of allegation. As well as paragraph 3(c)(i) of the Regulations so stating, subsection 6(7) of the Regulations allow the first person (in this case, Merck) to make a motion any time during the proceeding for production of portions of the submission for a notice of compliance filed by the second person. The same provision states that the Court may also order the Minister to verify that any portion produced corresponds fully to the information in the submission. This process cannot occur if no new drug submission has been filed. This is, in fact, what occurred in the case at bar: Merck made an application pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Regulations for certain productions relating to the new drug submission. As no new drug submission had been filed, no production and verification was possible. This would not occur if the notice of allegation relating to the submission filed had been served at the time Apotex filed the new drug submission or any time thereafter.

[29]      As indicated therefore, the Court finds that no valid notice of allegation as

contemplated by the Regulations exists and therefore Apotex has not and cannot, in the present proceedings and in respect of the purported notice of allegation served on Merck, comply with section 5 of the Regulations, specifically subparagraph 5(3)(c)(i).

[30]      The Court would like to make mention of reasons for judgment rendered in a case

containing a similar, but not identical, fact situation to the one at bar: Glaxo Group Limited et al v. The Minister of National Health and Welfare and Apotex Inc., (March 13, 2000) Court File T-415-98. That case also concerned a notice of allegation filed before the coming into force of the amended Regulations, and a proceeding commenced subsequent to their coming into force. The proceeding was commenced on the same day as the case at bar and the notice of allegation was sent to the applicant on the same day as it was in the case at bar. In Court File T-415-98, this Court adjudicated the case on its merits, and ultimately found that an order of prohibition was not warranted. In T-415-98, arguments were raised that Apotex had not complied with section 5 of the Regulations. However, this Court did not deal with this argument in its reasons as such was not necessary. The vital difference between the two cases, and this Court"s treatment of them, is that there is clear evidence before the Court (affidavit of Dr. Sherman) that Apotex did not comply with section 5 of the Regulations. In Court File T-415-98, there was no such evidence " only speculation that Apotex had not complied.

[31]      In the case at bar, since Merck made use of the provision in subsection 6(7), it was

able to inform itself, and ultimately the Court, that no new drug submission was filed prior to the service of the notice of allegation and indeed, none was filed as of March 5, 1999. Given the Court"s ruling on the applicability and interpretation of the amendments, Merck has therefore been successful in its quest for declaratory relief.

[32]      The Court has been asked to grant an order confirming and directing that the

Minister is prohibited from issuing a notice of compliance to Apotex for simvastatin until Apotex has complied with sections of the Regulations, including subparagraph 5(3)(c)(i). However, as the Minister has to be presumed to comply with the Regulations and will abide by the prohibition outlined in subparagraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulations from his issuing a NOC in the present circumstances, such an order of prohibition is not appropriate: Novopharm Ltd. v. AB Hassle et al, (September 23, 1999) Court File A-423-95 (C.A.).

[33]      The Court is prepared to declare that the notice of allegation dated January 26,

1998 is not a valid notice of allegation as contemplated by the Regulations and that therefore, Apotex has not and cannot, in the present proceedings, comply with section 5 of the Regulations, specifically subparagraph 5(3)(c)(i).

[34]      The applicants shall have their costs of the motion.



                             "John A. O"Keefe"

                                     J.F.C.C.

Ottawa, Ontario

May 3, 2000

__________________

1The application was brought with respect to three patents: Canadian Patent No. 1,161,380 (the ""380 Patent"), Canadian Patent No. 1,199,322 (the ""322 Patent") and Canadian Patent No. 2,053,000 (the ""000 Patent"). Merck later withdrew reliance upon the "000 patent and, just days before the hearing of this application, the Minister announced that the "380 patent had been delisted from the Patent Register maintained by the Minister in respect of the medicine simvastatin. Therefore, it was only the allegation with respect to the "322 Patent that was the subject matter of the hearing.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.