Article updated 14/02/2020
The Innovation Patent system was originally introduced in 2001 to provide a cheaper, more efficient way for small to medium-sized businesses to protect their intellectual property through the ‘innovative step’ test. Innovation Patents protect those inventions that do not meet the inventive step threshold required for standard patents. However, the recent Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019 (the Bill) will see the eventual phasing out of the Innovation Patent system in Australia.
The Bill was introduced into the Senate in July 2019, for the primary purpose of reviewing the Innovation Patent system. An inquiry into the Bill found that only 17% of submissions supported removal of the Innovation Patent.[1] The majority of the opposition came from many small and medium-sized businesses and relevant industry groups, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry which represents around 300,000 Australian businesses. Notwithstanding this however, a Senate Committee has recommended that the Bill be passed into law.
Why change the innovation patent system?
The Senate Committee proposed a number of reasons for removing the Innovation Patent system. Firstly, there has been a perception that the current innovative step test, which requires “a substantial contribution to the working of the invention”,[2] was too low and therefore gave rise to an influx of Innovation Patents that were enforceable at law. In addition, there was a perception that small and medium-sized businesses were not making use of the innovation patent system, and those who had were not acquiring benefits from it. This appears to be the primary justification for phasing out the system.
The introduction of an object clause
The Bill will see the introduction of an object clause into the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (the Act), stating that its main object “is to provide a patent system in Australia that promotes economic wellbeing through technological innovation”.[3]
The Senate Committee recommended an objects clause with the aim of providing more targeted assistance to stimulate innovation in Australia. In making its decision about the objects clause, the committee was of the view that an object clause would “provide a valuable statement of the overarching framework for the patent system to guide decision makers and the community”.[4] Arguments that were raised against the introduction of an objects clause were that terms such as “technological innovation” and “economic wellbeing” would limit what could be patented and create uncertainty and complexity.
What this means for patent applications
After the Bill receives royal assent, no new innovation patents may be filed. In the interim however, there are transitional provisions to maintain the rights of those existing Innovative Patents. There are concerns the legislation will result in a narrowed patent eligible subject matter, particularly for innovations in the ICT and biotechnology fields. This, combined with the introduction of an object clause, may introduce uncertainty and restrict patent eligible subject matter and make it harder for small to medium-sized businesses and other individuals to protect their intellectual property.
However, it is important to note that innovation patents may still be filed up until the date the legislation is passed. The exact date is yet to be determined but is likely to be around mid-2021. Even after the legislation takes effect, existing innovation patents will remain valid until their expiry 8 years after filing. In addition, any pre-existing standard patents may still be converted into innovation patents or have a divisional innovation patent filed from it.
Takeaways
The phasing out of the Innovation Patent system will eventually restrict patent eligible subject matter and thus make it harder for small and medium-sized businesses to protect their intellectual property. However, nothing will change until the legislation takes effect, so for the time being new innovation patents may still be filed.
Links and further references
Legislation
Further information about protecting your invention
If you need assistance in protecting your invention, 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.
[1] Senate Economics Legislation Committee report on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019.
[2] Dura-Post (Australia) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 81.
[3] Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019 sch 1.
[4] Senate Economics Legislation Committee report on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019.
Related insights about protecting your invention
-
Understanding contributory liability for patent infringement
In Australia, the Patent Act 1990 (Cth) provides protection for inventors by preventing others from using, making, or selling patented inventions without permission. The Act also extends liability to parties that are not directly infringing patents but may contribute to or enable patent infringement by supplying a product.
-
Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises
The Federal Court decision in Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1443 involved an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief by Maxim Media Inc. and Maxim Inc. (together, Maxim) (Applicants) for alleged breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), passing off and infringement of a…
-
Misuse of confidential information in source code
In Australia, computer code can amount to confidential information as well as being subject to copyright protection. In some cases the two things overlap as was the case in decision of the Court in Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 265 ALR 281; [2010] FCAFC 21.
-
IP Australia adopts Madrid Goods and Services list
From 26 March 2024, IP Australia has implemented the internationally recognised Madrid Goods and Services list (Madrid List), replacing the AU Goods and Services Picklist.[1] The adoption of the Madrid List comes as Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia) seeks to align the Australian classification standards with the other intellectual property offices around the world.
-
Federal Court requirements for electronic discovery and metadata
Electronic discovery in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) is nothing new. From July 2014, the FCA began implementing the Court’s electronic court file (ECF) across its Australian registries. This enabled the Court to embrace the use of technology in proceedings, including the use of electronic discovery, eLodgement, eTrials, eCourtroom, and video conferences.
-
Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses
Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders. Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…
-
Use of the © (copyright) symbol
It is something that is often overlooked, however it is considered best practice to add a copyright statement and the little © symbol (Copyright Statement) on any literary or artistic works (Works) that a business publishes and asserts that it owns. Under Australian law, the “material form” of all original Works is automatically protected by…
-
IP Australia guidelines for trade mark classification
There has been a surge in trade mark applications in the digital space, notably concerning virtual goods, virtual environments such as the metaverse, NFTs, and the blockchain according to observations made by IP Australia. This article discusses the things to consider when selecting the classification(s) for virtual goods and services when filing an application for…
-
“User principle” damages for breach of copyright
The usual position in intellectual property infringement matters is that the successful applicant can elect between an account of profits or damages. However, what if the applicant has not suffered any direct loss as a result of the actions of the respondent that is held to have infringed its copyright?
