
Publication
An overview of the Commonwealth’s model litigant obligation
Since the early 20th century, Australian courts have emphasised the obligation for the Commonwealth to act as a ‘model litigant’ in court proceedings.
Global | Publication | March 2017
Case: Apotex Inc v AstraZeneca Canada Inc, et al (SCC Docket: 37478)
Drug: LOSEC® (omeprazole)
Nature of case: Appeal from validity and infringement action under the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 (Patent Act)
Appellant: Apotex Inc. (Apotex)
Respondents: AstraZeneca Canada Inc., AstraZeneca AB and Aktiebolaget Hässle (collectively AstraZeneca)
Date: March 13, 2017
On March 13, 2017, Apotex filed for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s (FCA) decision addressing validity and infringement of AstraZeneca’s Canadian Patent No. 1,292,693 (the 693 Patent) (reported here) with the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).
As we reported, the Federal Court held AstraZeneca’s patent valid and infringed by Apotex’s manufacture, sale, and promotion of Apo-Omeprazole capsules.
On appeal, the FCA upheld the Federal Court’s findings on construction, validity and infringement, and affirmed that a patent need only describe a single method or process for making the claimed invention. However, the FCA overturned the Federal Court’s decision on the applicable limitation periods, and held that, as the 693 Patent is covered by the pre-1989 Patent Act, provincial statutory limitations would apply to any “cause of action arising in that province” instead of the six-year federal limitation period. The FCA also dismissed AstraZeneca’s cross-appeal on punitive damages.
Publication
Since the early 20th century, Australian courts have emphasised the obligation for the Commonwealth to act as a ‘model litigant’ in court proceedings.
Publication
The Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Annotation) Regulations 2025 and an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum were published on 14 May 2025.
Publication
In a recent decision, Matco Tools Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court has overturned a Commissioner of Patents (the Commissioner) decision regarding a patent applicant failing to meet the “due care” standard in the context of an unpaid maintenance fee.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025