Key Points:

1. Case Overview:

   • Janssen alleges JAMP's product infringes on Canadian Patent 2,671,357, concerning the crystalline hemihydrate form of canagliflozin.
   • Janssen sought samples from JAMP to verify infringement.

2. Plaintiffs' Requests:

   • Samples of canagliflozin API, finished tablets, and excipients.
   • Broad requests including expired, non-expired, and ongoing production samples.

3. Defendant's Response:

   • JAMP claimed no possession of relevant samples, noting existing tablets were expired.
   • Offered limited API samples under restricted conditions.

4. Court's Orders:

   • Expired Samples: Ordered JAMP to produce expired tablets, recognizing potential utility in testing.
   • Non-expired Samples: JAMP to attempt obtaining 90 tablets each of 100 mg and 300 mg canagliflozin from its supplier.
   • API: JAMP to provide 20 mg of API for plaintiffs’ expert testing.
   • Intermediates/Excipients: No order due to insufficient evidence of their availability.
   • New Samples: Denied Janssen's request to compel new sample manufacturing, citing lack of legal precedent.
   • Rolling Production: Denied ongoing production samples; issue can be revisited during discovery.

5. Successful Party: There was no clear, outright successful party as the success was divided.

   • Plaintiffs (Janssen): Successfully obtained orders for the production of expired tablets and API samples.
   • Defendant (JAMP): Successfully avoided orders for the production of intermediates, excipients, rolling production, and new sample manufacturing.

6. Costs:

   • No order as to costs due to divided success on the motion.

Legal Context:

• Gilead Sciences, Inc v. Apotex Inc: Supports a permissive approach to Rule 249 for sample requests.
• Eli Lilly Case: Clarified the necessity standard for obtaining useful evidence for the trier of fact.