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
-
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.
-
Cost awards in unfair dismissal cases – part 1
Employers in Australia must be aware of potential costs involved when defending an unfair dismissal claim at the Fair Work Commission. Despite success, employers rarely get the option to recover costs from the complainant employee.
-
Implied terms in copyright licensing
Court determines scope of implied licence for digital content, emphasizing need for clear written terms to protect intellectual property rights.
-
What exactly is the springboard doctrine?
This article examines the ‘springboard’ doctrine which refers to the benefit that is derived because of misuse of confidential information by a defendant that enables them to ‘springboard’ a new product or service to market more rapidly than if they had used their own mind.
-
What is a registered design – Australian law
Learn more about registering a design in Australia and the legal rights associated with it. Understand the criteria for successful registration, the legal owner of the design, and infringement proceedings.
