Source: https://www.trans-lex.org/240907/_/icsid-award-apotex-v-usa-icsid-case-no-arb-12-1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:54:30+00:00

Document:
Document-Id: 240907, Please cite as: "https://www.trans-lex.org/240907"
Holdings as a privy, albeit not a named party, is considered separately below).
privies). The Claimants submit it does not; whereas the Respondent says it does.
ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5), together with costs orders adverse to the claimants.
international tribunal in determining the res judicata effect of the earlier award.
Asylum case ... the problem was ... of the scope of the binding force of the decision.
what was finally decided in that earlier proceeding.
by reference to its reasons for that judgment.
forming part of the arbitration agreement between the parties to that arbitration.
& II Award (with its reasons) was and remains final and binding upon Apotex Inc.
and the Respondent, as agreed by those Parties.
isolation from its relevant reasons under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
the lex loci arbitri) of the reasons or the operative part of the Apotex I & II Award.
specific claims made by Apotex Inc. in this arbitration.
as a matter of jurisdiction.
parts of the Apotex I & II Award.
tribunal rejects Apotex Inc.’s submissions: see Paragraphs 178, 186ff & 225.
jurisdiction over the claims there made by Apotex Inc. as the claimant.
reasons, could not form the basis of res judicata in this arbitration.
cases (as the parties clearly did in the Apotex I & II arbitration).
operating as quasi-import licences which support cross-border sales by Apotex Inc.
are not commodities in the territory of the USA.
jurisdiction under NAFTA’s Chapter Eleven.
doctrine by ‘claim-splitting’ in successive proceedings.
Claimants could still bring the same claims relating to other drug products.
issue in favour of the Respondent and against Apotex Inc. and Apotex-Holdings.
are considered in the Parts which follow).
…” (Paragraph 209, emphasis added/italics in the original).
& II tribunal did not decide the question here in issue.
intangible property for the purposes of NAFTA Article 1139(g).
6 Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the U.N. Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 13 July 1954, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 47, p. 53.
7 Cheng, Bin, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), at p. 336.
8 Amco Asia Corp. v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Resubmitted Case, Decision on Jurisdiction (10 May 1988), 27 ILM 1281 (1988).
9Id., Para. 30 (quoting expert report of Professor Reisman) (emphasis in original).
10Cheng, supra, at p. 337.
12 Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 & 8 Concerning the Case of the Factory at Chorzow, supra, at p. 20.
13 Schreuer, Christoph and Reinisch, August, Legal Opinion, CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL (20 June 2002), at p. 16, Para. 43 (“Schreuer & Reinisch”). See also Amerasinghe, Chittharanjan F, International Arbitral Jurisdiction (2011), at p. 169; and Lowe, Vaughan, Res Judicata and the Rule in International Arbitration, 8 RADIC 38 (1996), at pp. 40-41. Professors Schreuer and Reinisch discuss the use by contemporary tribunals of an “economic approach” in assessing identity; but that is not relevant to the present case (see Paras. 21-40).
14 International Law Association, Interim Report, “Res Judicata” and Arbitration, International Law Association, Berlin Conference on International Arbitration (2004), at p. 2. (“ILA Interim Report”). The Tribunal notes that the ILA’s Final Report on “Res Judicata” was expressly limited to international commercial arbitration: hence its citation here is of limited relevance, as submitted by the Claimants [TD1.158].
15 See the cases cited by Schreuer and Reinisch, supra, at p. 8, Para. 15.
16British-U.S. Claims Arbitration (1910), cited in Cheng, supra, at pp. 339-340.
17 Schreuer & Reinisch, supra, at p. 3, Para. 6.
18The Pious Fund of the Californias, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Award (14 October 1902), at p. 3 (unofficial English translation).
19 Cheng, supra, at p. 343.
20Schreuer & Reinisch, supra, at p. 17, Para. 45.
21 Dodge, William, National Courts and International Arbitration: Exhaustion of Remedies and Res Judicata Under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA, 23 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. (2000), at p. 366; Schreuer & Reinisch, supra, at pp. 17-18, Paras. 46-48.
22Claim of Company General of the Orinoco Case, Report of French-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission of 1902 (1906, Ralston, Jackson H., ed.) at p. 355.
23 Amco v. Indonesia, supra.
24 Lowe, supra, at p. 42.
25 Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award (10 December 2010).
26 Although the Grynberg Award referred to the principle as “collateral estoppel”, the US legal concept of “collateral estoppel” is broader, permitting non-parties (or privies) to a prior litigation to invoke the doctrine to preclude re-litigation of an issue previously decided. That broader principle is not an issue in the present case, as the Respondent recognised [TD4.1190].
27 Grynberg v. Grenada, supra, Para. 7.1.8.
30Grynberg v. Grenada, supra, Para. 7.1.1.
33 Grynberg v. Grenada, supra, see (inter alia) Paras. 5.3.5 and 5.3.6.
34See, e.g., Cheng, supra, at p. 337; Amco v. Indonesia, supra, Para. 30.
35 Southern Pacific R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1 (1897).
36See ILA Interim Report, supra, at p. 14.
37 Id., at p. 15.
38 Pious Fund, supra, at p. 2.
39Polish Postal Service in Danzig, Advisory Opinion, 1925 P.C.I.J. (Ser. B) No. 11 (May 16), Para. 86.
40Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 & 8 Concerning the Case of the Factory at Chorzow, supra, at p. 24.
41 Case Concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf (U.K. v. France), 18 R.I.A.A. 272 (14 March 1978), 295 (Para. 28).
42 Rosenne, supra, at p. 1603.
43 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950, in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment of 27 November 1950, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 395.
44 Corfu Channel case, Judgment of 9 April 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4.
45Rosenne, supra, at p. 1603.
46 Asteris & Greece v Commission,  ECR 2181, Para. 27.
47 Commission of the European Communities v. BASF AG & Others,  ECR I-2555, Para. 67.
48 Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH (TWD) v Commission,  ECR I-2549, Para. 21.
49Rosenne, supra, at p. 1556.
52 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment of 11 November 2013 (ICJ).
56 TD3.542. See also TD3.544.
58 The complaints made in the Request (Paras. 55-56) and the Apotex Memorial (Paras. 530-538) as regards “pending ANDAs” were subsequently abandoned by the Claimants: see the Claimants’ letter to the Tribunal dated 7 February 2013.
59 Apart from its summaries of the parties’ respective arguments, see in Paras. 200, 209, 210 (in part), 211, 212- 215, 220-221 (in part) and 223 (in part) of the Apotex I & II Award.
60 See, in particular, Paras. 196-199, 202-205, 207-208, 210-211 (in part), 216-219, 220-221 (in part), 222, 223 (in part), 224-225, 226 and 229-240 of the Apotex I & II Award.
61See the Apotex I & II Award, Paras. 226ff and 235. (Apotex Inc. was represented by different Counsel in the Apotex I & II arbitration than Counsel for the Claimants in this arbitration).
62 See the Apotex I & II Award, Paras. 230-235.
63Grynberg v. Grenada, supra, Para. 7.3.6 (“It is true that Claimants style the present arbitration as Treaty claim based [the first arbitration was contract-based upon a concession agreement]. But the difficulty with this is that, as pleaded and argued, the present case is no more than an attempt to re-litigate and overturn the findings of another ICSID tribunal, based on allegations of corruption that were either known at the time or which ought to have been raised by way of a revision application and over which the Prior Tribunal had jurisdiction”).
64 See Paras. 186, 192, 196 and 225 of the Apotex I & II Award.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.