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
-
Interlocutory injunctions and damages undertakings
An interlocutory injunction may be sought by a patent owner to stop a defendant from infringing their patent. This article examines the two elements that must be established by an Applicant and the considerations the Court will take into account when making its decision.
-
Calculating account of profits – trade mark infringement
This article examines the calculation of damages when an account of profits is awarded as a remedy for trade mark infringement. It covers the general principle, the proportionality rule, and the deduction of overhead costs.
-
Non-fungible tokens – a new way to hold IP?
Discover the rising phenomenon of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and how they can help protect your Intellectual Property (IP). Learn how NFTs works, its benefits for rights holders, and potential legal issues. Get the full picture here.
-
Unjustified trade mark infringement threats
Comprehensive list of Australian Court decisions and related legislation covering corporate, technology, intellectual property, commercial, employment, negligence, confidentiality, copyright, moral rights, user generated content, click wrap/browse wrap, trademarks, torts and social media law.
-
What exactly are moral rights?
This article provides an overview of moral rights in Australia, including the three moral rights available to authors and performers, the works protected by them, their retrospective application, when they may be infringed, and the case of Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136 (Meskenas). Helping readers understand the implications of moral rights…
-
How much copying leads to copyright infringement?
This article outlines the definition of Literary Works, the subsistence of copyright in such works, and the test for infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). It also provides an overview of the four major characteristics to consider when determining if copying is substantial.
-
What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?
The Federal Government has announced a ‘patent box’ tax regime to boost Australian biotech and medtech innovators with a $206 million corporate tax cut. Learn more about the scope, qualifications and prerequisites for patenting an invention.
-
Accessory liability and copyright infringement
Manufacturers and service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement, but when? This article examines the legal implications of the Sea Shepherd (UK) v Fish & Fish Ltd [2015] UKSC 10 case and accessory liability.
-
Palmer breaches copyright – liable for $1.5m AUD in damages
Court found Respondent infringed copyright of Daniel “Dee” Snider’s works, awarding $1.5M for flagrant, contumelious infringements. It was found as not fair and not satirical/parodical.
