Pfizer Inc v Commissioner of Patents

The case of Pfizer Inc v Commissioner of Patents was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an application by Pfizer for an extension of the patent term of a pharmaceutical substance. The Commissioner of Patents rejected the application, and Pfizer appealed to the Federal Court. The legal issue before the court was whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in considering the selection patent in determining whether the pharmaceutical substance, voriconazole, was in substance disclosed in the parent patent. The applicant argued that the Deputy Commissioner should have confined himself to the parent patent and the evidence of a person skilled in the art as to the construction of that patent. The court considered the evidence of a skilled addressee, Dr Stamford, who established that voriconazole is one of the chemical entities covered by the chemical formula in the parent patent. The court concluded that the selection patent was irrelevant to the question of the construction of the parent patent. The Deputy Commissioner had erred in considering the selection patent in the construction of the parent patent. The court set aside the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Patents for determination according to law.