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
-
IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions
Learn how the repeal of Section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) affects businesses licensing or assigning intellectual property (IP) rights and the penalties associated with a breach with this comprehensive guide.
-
Software litigation – how much evidence is sufficient?
The Court was asked to decide if the applicant had enough info to begin proceedings for copyright infringement and breach of confidence in Qudos Mutual Ltd v Infosys Ltd [2019] FCA 702. Qudos was not satisfied with what they had, so the Court ordered the production of further documents and source code.
-
Has my software been copied? – legal test explained
This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…
-
Not so swole – Trade marks removed for non-use
The Federal Court examined the evidence needed to prove intention to use a trade mark in good faith. Find out what happened when an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal was refused.
-
Confusing marks – Sensis v Senses
Sensis Pty Ltd v Senses Direct Mail and Fulfillment Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 719: Court ruled SENSES marks deceptively similar to SENSIS marks, highlighting importance of engaging intellectual property lawyers when building a brand. Marks can be infringing if spelling is only slightly different, if it resembles another and likely to deceive and cause confusion.
-
Security for legal costs in patent invalidity cross-claims
This article examines the application of section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in 50/50 or equal ownership disputes. The WA Supreme Court has found that oppressive conduct can still be asserted in equal ownership situations.
-
Use of competitor’s confidential information
Many businesses try to increase market share by employing a competitor’s member of staff who may bring with them relationships and information acquired over the years. Employees owe fiduciary duties to their employers meaning, among other things, that an employee cannot make a personal gain by using confidential information acquired in the course of their…
-
Patent infringement lawyer
This article explores the complexities of patent infringement in Australia. Learn more about the patent layout, essential integers, and remedies available to protect your intellectual property.
-
Changes to copyright protection durations
The Australian Government passed a major amendment to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) which will have a significant impact on copyright materials. Find out what the changes are and how they may affect you by reading this article.
