2 total
Ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva orders set aside for material non‑disclosure.
The defendants moved to set aside ex parte Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions obtained by the plaintiff in a fraud action involving alleged misappropriation of corporate funds and improper commissions.
The court reviewed the strict legal requirements for such extraordinary remedies and emphasized the obligation of full, fair, and frank disclosure on without‑notice motions.
It found the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts, including ongoing communications with certain defendants, repayment negotiations, employment relationships, and other contextual facts that could have influenced the original decision.
The court also found insufficient evidence that certain defendants possessed incriminating documents or posed a real risk of asset dissipation.
As a result, the Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions were set aside against all defendants.
A related motion by one defendant to strike portions of the statement of claim was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge properly allowed accounting for profits and directed referee to count all infringing capsules.
Apotex appealed a trial judge's decision allowing Bayer to elect an accounting for profits as a remedy for patent infringement and directing a referee to count all infringing capsules sold by Apotex.
Apotex argued that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof, misconstrued the patent, and erred in finding a causal link between the infringement and all profits.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to award an accounting for profits or in the direction to the referee, as Apotex's product infringed the patent in its entirety.