Pfizer Corp v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 190

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pfizer Corp v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 190 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – patents – whether extension of time for patent valid – whether Commissioner misconstrued s 70 of the Patents Act in extending the term of the patent – registration and listing of goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act – whether the first regulatory approval date is the date on which substance was entered into the part of the Therapeutic Register relating to registered goods or the date on which the substance was entered into the Therapeutic Register relating to listed goods PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeals – leave to appeal required for an appeal under s 158 of the Patents Act – whether clear prima facie error required in the reasons of the primary judge Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 13, 58, 61, 65, 67, 70, 71, 75, 77, 104, 105, 106, 107, 154, 156, 186, 191, 192, 228 Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) r 6.8, 6.9, 6.10,10.7 Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) ss 9A, 18, 18A, 19, 19A, 19B, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 36 Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (Cth) r 10 Genetics Institute Inc v Kirin-Amgen Inc (1999) 92 FCR 106 cited H Lundbeck A/S v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCA 163 cited Imperial Chemical Industries plc v EI Dupont De Nemours & Co [2002] FCAFC 264 cited Kenman Kandy Australia Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (2002) 122 FCR 494 cited Lomas v Winton Shire Council [2002] FCAFC 413 cited Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (1997) 191 CLR 85 cited Renaud Cointreau & Cie v Cordon Bleu International Ltee (2001) 52 IPR 382 cited Shanahan v Scott (1957) 96 CLR 245 cited Woolworths Ltd v BP plc (2006) 150 FCR 134 referred to Industry Commission Report on the Pharmaceutical Industry, No 51, AGPS, Melbourne 1996