Pharma

Merck’s Canadian arm loses Supreme Court of Canada case over trade secrets

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against Merck’s (NYSE:MRK) Canadian division in a case focused on the question of what are corporate trade secrets in the drug approval process, according to Canadian media reports. The 10 year-old case pitted the Canadian health department, Health Canada, against Merck Canada. Citing court documents, the Vancouver Sun […]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against Merck’s (NYSE:MRK) Canadian division in a case focused on the question of what are corporate trade secrets in the drug approval process, according to Canadian media reports.

The 10 year-old case pitted the Canadian health department, Health Canada, against Merck Canada. Citing court documents, the Vancouver Sun reported that Merck’s Canadian business, previously known as Merck Frosst, gave Health Canada “chemical and manufacturing information, including the results of clinical studies” about asthma drug Singulair to comply with the government’s Food and Drug Regulations.

Although there is a five-year moratorium governing release of that information by the government, Health Canada told Merck it planned to release a portion of the information it did not consider to be confidential or that it believed was already in the public domain, the paper reported, following a request allegedly filed by a competitor.

The government maintained that the information did not qualify under the headings that can prevent information from being released under the Access to Information Act: trade secrets; confidential financial, commercial or other scientific data; or if the information could harm the third party, the Vancouver Sun reported. The drug company maintained that it did.

In response to the Supreme Court decision, Merck Canada issued a statement that read:

“…Merck is disappointed with the outcome but takes comfort in some of the court’s comments and direction.  The court acknowledged that the Access to Information Act must be interpreted and applied so that it strikes the balance Parliament intended between broad rights of access and protection of third party information. Also, the court is of the view that a fairly low threshold is required to trigger the obligation to give notice to a third party that its information is subject to an access to information request.”