Federal Court of Canada Reiterates High Threshold of Irreparable Harm in Interim Injunctions
1
FEDERALCOURTOFCANADAREITERATESHIGHTHRESHOLDOFIRREPARABLE
HARMININTERIMINJUNCTIONS
By
AlexandraSteele
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
INTRODUCTION
Inacaseopposingtwopharmaceuticalgiants,theTrialDivisionofthe
FederalCourtofCanada,ruledthatthePlaintiffhadfailedtodischargethe
highburdenofshowingirreparableharminitsrequestforanorderforan
interiminjunction(PfizerIrelandPharmaceuticalsv.LillyIcosLLC,2003FC1278,
November3,2003,KelenJ.)
THEFACTS
ThePlaintiff,PfizerIrelandPharmaceuticals(“Pfizer”),isaninternational
pharmaceuticalcompanywithCanadianoperations,knownfor,amongst
others,aproductforthetreatmentoferectiledysfunctionsoldunderthe
trade-markVIAGRA.TheCanadianpatentforVIAGRAissettoexpireinthe
year2014.Sincethelaunchofthisproductin1999,salesinCanadahave
totalledcloseto182milliondollars,and40millionsdollarshavebeenspenton
advertisingandpromotion.
TheDefendant,LillyIcosLLC(“Lilly”)alsohasatreatmentforerectile
dysfunctionanditsmedicationissoldunderthetrade-markCIALIS.Lillysellsit
CIALISproductincompetitionwithPfizer’sVIAGRAproductinmanycountries
aroundtheworld.In2002,Lillyinstitutedproceedingsforimpeachmentof
Pfizer’sCanadianpatentonthebasisofobviousness.Pfizerinturninitiateda
patentinfringementactionagainstLilly,inclusiveofarequestforinjunctive
relieftopreventLillyfromimportingandsellingCIALISinCanada.Pfizer’s
infringementactionwasstruckoutasbeingprematuresincetheCIALIS
producthadnotyetbeenapprovedforimportationandsaleinCanadaat
thetimetheactionwastaken.
2
TheCIALISproductwasfinallyapprovedforimportationandsaleinCanada
inSeptember2003andwasscheduledtobesoldasofNovember1,2003.This
recentturnofeventsleadPfizertotakeasecondinfringementactionagainst
Lilly,inclusiveofarequestforaninterimandinterlocutoryinjunctiverelief.
THEJUDGEMENT
TheCourtbeganbyreviewingtherequirementsfortheissuanceofaninterim
injunction.Aninteriminjunctionisanexceptionalremedyanditisonlyissued
ifthereisurgencyjustifyingitsissuance.TheCourtfurtherreiteratedthewell
establishedtestforinteriminjunction(RJR-McDonaldInc.v.Canada(Attorney
General),[1994]1S.C.R.311(S.C.C.)),namelythattheapplicantisrequiredto
show:
-aseriousquestiontobetried;
-irreparableharm(iftheapplicationforinjunctionisrefused);and
-thebalanceofconvenience(whichpartywillsufferthegreaterharm
pursuanttotheissuance,ornot,oftheinjunction).
AninteriminjunctionintheFederalCourtofCanadaisvalidforaperiodof
fourteen(14)days.However,inthiscase,Pfizersoughtaninteriminjunction
whichwouldhavebeenvaliduntilthepartieswerereadyfortheinterlocutory
injunctionhearing,whichitestimatedwouldbeapproximatelyoneortwo
monthsfromtheissuanceofaninteriminjunction.Thistypeof“extended”
interiminjunctionisnotcontemplatedbytheFederalCourtRules(1998),but
theCourtnonethelessruledthatithadinherentjurisdictiontograntsamein
certainspecialcircumstances.
Onthebasisoftheforegoing,theCourtruledasfollows:
1-Urgency
SinceLillyhadnotcontestedtheissueofurgency,theCourtacceptedthat
samehadbeenproved.
2–SeriousIssuetoBeTried
Thisisusuallythe“easiest”criteriatoproveinthetestforinteriminjunction.The
CourtwasoftheviewthatLilly’s2002patentimpeachmentactionandthe
infringementactionofPfizerweresufficientfactsinevidenceshowingthat
Pfizer’srequestforaninteriminjunctionwasbasedonaseriousissues.
3
3–IrreparableHarm
Thisisusuallythemostdifficultcriteriatoovercomeforapersonseekingan
interiminjunction.
Pfizerarguedthatwithoutaninteriminjunction,itsexclusivepatentrights,
goodwill,brandequity,marketshareanditsabilitytobuildontheseassets
overthetermofthepatentwouldbeirreparablydamaged.Accordingto
Pfizer,anydamageitwouldsufferafterthelaunchoftheCIALISproducton
theCanadianmarketwouldaffectitscompanyimage,strengthinthemarket
andtheestablishmentofastrongtrade-mark.Pfizerfurtherarguedthatit
wouldbeimpossibletodoaproperaccountingofitsdamagessincethesale
oftheCIALISproductinCanadawouldleadtoadifferentdevelopmentof
themarket.ItalsoarguedthatiftheCIALISproductweretoberemovedfrom
themarketintwoorthreeyears,whenapermanentinjunctionwasissued,this
wouldcauseabacklashagainstitPfizeranditVIAGRAproduct.
Afterreviewingtheevidence,theCourtconcludedthatPfizerhadnot
adduced“clearandnotspeculative”evidenceofirreparableharmfollowing
theimportationandsaleoftheCIALISproductinCanada(CentreIceLtd.v.
NationalHockeyLeague,(1994)53C.P.R.34(F.C.A.)).Theallegationsof
eventual“resentment”andbacklashfromconsumersofCIALISproduct
againstPfizerwasnot,intheCourt’sview,supportedbyevidence.
TheCourtnotedthatPfizerhadnotbroughtanyrelevantCanadiancases
grantinganinterimorinterlocutoryinjunctioninapatentinfringementcase:
thegeneralreasoningoftheFederalCourtisthatpatentrightsusuallyinvolve
monetarydamagesandsamecanusuallybecalculated.Accordingtothe
Court,pharmaceuticalcompaniesusuallyhaveallthenecessaryresourcesto
calculatedamagesbasedonahistoricalanalysisofsimilarcases.
TheCourtalsogaveweighttothefactthatPfizerhadnotsoughtinjunctive
reliefinanyoftheothercountrieswheretheCIALISproductwasbeingsold,in
directcompetitionwiththeVIAGRAproduct,likelybecausePfizercouldnot
establishirreparableharm.
4–BalanceofConvenience
Whenindoubtaboutthestrengthoftheevidencerelatingtooneoranother
partofthetestforinteriminjunction,theCourtmustanalysewhetherone
partywouldbeprejudicedmorethantheotheriftheinterlocutoryinjunction
4
wasissued.However,sinceCourthadconcludedthattherewasno
irreparableharmshownbyPfizer,itdidnothavetoconsiderthiscriteria.
Fortheabovereasons,theCourtdismissedtheinteriminjunction,withcostsin
thecause,andorderedthepartiestosubmitascheduleforconductofthe
fileuntilinterlocutoryinjunction.
CONCLUSION
Thiscaseconstitutesareminderthatinteriminjunctionsarerarely,ifever,
grantedinpatentinfringementcasesbeforetheFederalCourtofCanada
andthatahighthresholdofirreparableharmmustbemetbytheparty
requestingsuchaninjunction.DespitethefactthattheCourtdidnotconsider
itappropriatetoissueaninteriminjunctioninthiscase,itdidnotdismissthe
requestasbeingfrivolous.Thereisstillafainthopethat,oneday,the“trend”
ofrefusinginteriminjunctionswillbereversed…
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.
Publishedat(2004)18-1WorldIntellectualPropertyReport4-6underthetitleHighTresholdof
IrreparableHarminInterimInjunction.Publication142.156.
5
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD