In two NOC proceedings, the order of evidence was reversed. Thus, Apotex filed evidence first in respect of validity, while Janssen filed evidence first in respect of infringement. By this motion, Janssen sought to strike much of the infringement evidence filed by Apotex as it was argued that it related more to validity.

The Court struck some of the evidence and allowed reply in a limited circumstance dealing with an additional study attached by Apotex. However, the Court concluded that much of the proposed reply evidence dealt with matters best left for cross-examination.

The full text of the decision can be found at the following 2 links:

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc81/2010fc81.html

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc82/2010fc82.html