patent law and commercialisation

Phasing out the innovation patent system

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsPhasing out the innovation patent system

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

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

Patents Act 1990 (Cth)

Further information about protecting your invention

If you need assistance in protecting your invention, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.

[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

  • What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    The case of Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 (Lamont v Malishus) involved an action for infringement of a registered trade mark in Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  This case raised several issues, including, whether using a word as part of a domain name constituted “use” as…

    Read more …

  • Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    The case of International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd v International Hair Cosmetics Limited [2011] FCA 339 (Case) considered whether use of Australian registered trade marks on a British website constituted “use in Australia” under section 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  It was ultimately held that, despite use of the two…

    Read more …

  • Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…

    Read more …

  • Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    On 10 May 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) delivered its judgment in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67 (New Aim v Leung), allowing an appeal concerning alleged misuse of confidential supplier information by a former senior employee. The decision provides guidance on:…

    Read more …

  • Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    The recent copyright case of Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd trading as Hamlan Homes and Geelong Homes v Levonix Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 565 (Hamlan v Levonix)involved a dispute between Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd 006 313 015 (Hamlan) and Levonix Homes Pty Ltd ACN 168 777 384 (Levonix) that provides insight into preservation…

    Read more …

  • Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    Proposed changes to copyright for orphan works

    On 5 November 2025, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 (Cth)(Bill) was introduced to the Federal Parliament to amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)(Copyright Act).  The media release to the Bill explained that it proposed two (2) reforms to the Copyright Act by establishing Australia’s first statutory “orphan works” scheme and clarifying the permitted use of…

    Read more …

  • Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    On 26 October 2025, the Attorney-General, Hon Michelle Rowland MP, published a media release reiterating that the current Federal Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright infringement in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  The Attorney-General’s Department will instead engage in further consultations with members of the Copyright…

    Read more …

  • Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case

    Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – copyright law and the Anthropic case

    On 10 September 2025, Malcolm Burrows appeared live on Katherine Feeney’s ABC Radio program, “Legal Eagles” as the Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer to discuss legal issues associated with copyright subsisting in artificial intelligence (AI) training data.

    Read more …

  • Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    Canva – who owns the artwork created by users?

    The general rule about ownership of copyright in a literary or artistic work is that copyright vests in the ‘original author’, as per section 35(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  From there, ownership depends on whether or not the original author is doing the work within the scope of their employment, in…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend