Alberta Court Of Appeal Confirms Six-year Federal Limitation Period Applies To Patent Infringement Claims

On January 28, 2025, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the ABCA) released its decision in the case of JL Energy Transportation Inc. v. Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership¹ (JL). In JL, the ABCA determined that the previously enforced two-year limitation period for claims for patent infringement no longer applies. Specifically, the ABCA rejected this two-year window in favour of a six-year limitation, overturning the summary dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit and allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Alberta's provincial Limitations Act (the Limitations Act) dictates that a defendant is entitled to immunity from a claim unless a proceeding claiming a remedial order is commenced within two years after the date on which the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances, ought to have known that the relevant injury had occurred as a result of the defendant's conduct and that the injury warrants bringing a proceeding.² Canada's federal Patent Act (the Patent Act) provides for a period three times as long ─ i.e., six years ─ specifically for patent infringement claims.³ On one hand, the Limitations Act provides a catch-all for limitation-based claims and on the other, the Patent Act provides specific guidance on limitations as they relate to patent infringement.

In JL, the ABCA considered whether the Limitations Act or federal Patent Act applied with respect to the limitation for commencing patent infringement claims. The case management judge had concluded that JL Energy Transportation Inc. had sufficient knowledge of its claim to warrant commencing a proceeding for patent infringement no later than November 27, 2013, but the statement of claim was issued on May 11, 2016.⁴ Accordingly, the Court of King's Bench dismissed the claim at first instance pursuant to the Limitations Act.

The ABCA found that the case management judge erred in applying the provincial limitation period on the basis that the Limitations Act does not purport to apply to causes of action created by federal statutes, such as the Patent Act, which are subject to a discrete limitation period.⁵ The ABCA emphasized that applying different limitation periods, depending on whether the case is heard in a federal or provincial court, would be legally inconsistent and the ABCA ultimately ruled in favour of the Patent Act's six-year limitation window. The ABCA also noted that, since the relevant statement of claim was issued on May 16, 2016, it would "catch all infringements after May 11, 2010 whether or not there is a rolling limitation period" i.e., whether or not the defendants' alleged continuing infringement gave rise to separate and continuing injuries. Accordingly, the issue as to whether an infringement of a patent creates a rolling limitation period appeared to be moot in this case, because all of the pleaded infringing activities occurred within the window created by the six-year limitation period.

This case will now proceed to trial, where the parties will have the opportunity to present their arguments on the alleged patent infringement.

Footnotes

1. 2025 ABCA 26.

2. RSA 2000, c L-12, s 3(1).

3. Patent Act, RSC 1985, C P-4, s 55.01.

4. Supra note 1 at 4-5.

5. Supra note 1 at 32.