Apotex brought a motion to amend its pleadings in an ongoing patent dispute over the drug Lansoprazole.
Following the Supreme Court's rejection of the 'Promise Doctrine' in AstraZeneca, Apotex sought to recast its previous Promise Doctrine allegations as claims of insufficiency, overbreadth, and fraud under sections 27 and 53 of the Patent Act.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments were legally untenable and merely repackaged the defunct Promise Doctrine.
Furthermore, the court held that the fraud allegations lacked the strict particularity required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and awarded elevated costs to the respondents.
