The Australian Government has released its response to the Productivity Commission’s report into intellectual property arrangements in Australia. The Productivity Commission (Commission) made numerous recommendations, a number of which were major departures from the current arrangements in Australia. This article discusses these recommendations, the government’s response, and what amendments to intellectual property laws we may expect to see in the near future.
Recommendations relating to copyright
The Productivity Commission’s report made a number of recommendations that were considered ‘radical’ by the government. These recommendations included the following in relation to copyright:
- a ‘fair use’ exception similar to that used in the United States that would broaden the unremunerated uses of copyright material in Australia;
- expanding the safe harbour provisions to all online service providers;
- making contracts that restrict the use of copyright material unenforceable;
- making the circumvention of geoblocking technology not an infringement of copyright; and
- repealing parallel importation restrictions on books.
In its report in response, the government acknowledged the benefits of some of the recommendations and supported many of them. The government supported the following recommendations:
- making unenforceable any part of an agreement restricting or preventing a use of copyright material that is permitted by a copyright exception;
- consulting with the book industry to repeal parallel import restrictions; and
- limiting the liability for the use of orphan works.
Recommendations relating to patents
The Commission also made recommendations as they relate to patents in Australia. It was said that these recommendations were uncontroversial and were generally supported by the government. These included:
- amending the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to include an objects clause that describes the purpose of the legislation as enhancing the wellbeing of Australians by promoting technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology;
- amending the test for whether a patent involves an inventive step to bring it in line with international standards such as the European Patent Office;
- new patents will be required to identify the technical features of the invention as set out in the patent application; and
- that the innovation patent system be abolished (but maintaining the rights of existing innovation patent owners).
Recommendations relating to trade marks
The Commission also made recommendations as they relate to trade marks in Australia. These recommendations were generally supported by the government and included:
- reducing the grace period from five (5) to three (3) years before new registrations can be challenged for non-use; and
- ensuring that parallel imports of marked goods do not infringe Australian registered trade marks.
While the recommendations of the Commission are only, recommendations, the government has shown its support and intention to amend the intellectual property laws in Australia to bring them closer to international standards. While the supported recommendations will not take effect immediately, expect to see a gradual implementation of these recommendations in future.
Takeaways
It has always been, and still remains, important for intellectual property owners to be aware of their rights and obligations. With these recommendations shaping the future of intellectual property law in Australia, intellectual property owners need to be aware of how the proposed changes may affect them and their business.
Links and further references
Reports
Australian Government Response to the Commission Inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements
Commission Inquiry Report No. 78 – Intellectual Property Arrangements
Legislation
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Further information about intellectual property
If you need assistance in relation to protecting or enforcing your intellectual property rights, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about intellectual property
-
Intellectual property theft and employee information theft
Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd v Koudstaal (No 3) [2014] FCA 1129 (Leica Geosystems) is a notable court case involving an Anton Piller order and employee theft. Find out more about what this means for companies and their intellectual property rights.
-
Online copyright infringement and stolen websites in Australia
This article examines copyright infringement, using the case of Motorcycle Aftermarket Spares Pty Ltd v Tamworth Cycle Tune Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1433 as a warning to those who reproduce copyrighted material without permission. The Courts take a serious view of such actions.
-
Ownership of employee inventions – disputing ownership of patents
Section 35(6) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) establishes a general rule that an employer will own the copyright in many types of works if they were created by an employee or apprentice, in the course of their employment. Unfortunately, there is no such legislative equivalent in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act). The absence…
-
Reverse engineering of software – legal boundaries?
Reverse engineering software in Australia is complex, with legal implications and cases providing authority on “infringing” verses “non-infringing” reverse engineering. Courts have provided some protection to intellectual property (IP) through licence agreements and distinguishing between ideas and expressions of a program.
-
Dallas Buyers Club wins preliminary discovery order
The Federal Court of Australia has granted a controversial application that could allow copyright holders to identify and pursue alleged infringers of their work. Find out what conditions were imposed on the copyright holders and what this could mean for the future of online copyright infringement.
-
Plant breeder’s rights – an introduction
This article explores the Plant Breeders Rights Act 1994 (Cth) and its implications for plant variety protection. Learn more about the exclusive rights granted to plant breeders, the registration requirements, and the exceptions that apply.
-
Selling counterfeit poles breaches IP rights
Australian sellers Vertical Leisure Ltd and Dance4Me Pty Ltd have won AU$394,800 in damages from competitor Skyrunner Pty Ltd, who sold counterfeit “X-Pole” dancing poles. The Federal Circuit Court’s decision provides guidance for calculating damages for multiple IP rights breaches.
-
Trade mark infringement
A registered trade mark is a sign used to distinguish traders’ goods/services from others. This article explains the form, purpose, infringement and penalties of trade marks, as governed by the Trade Marks Act 1995 in Australia.
-
Social media rant costs respondent over $350k!
Posting unsubstantiated allegations on social media can be risky. Learn about the consequences of a case in which a business was found to have misled and deceived customers, and how to protect yourself from similar situations. Read the full article to find out more.
