Intellectual property protection

What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?

HomeBlogIP litigation and disputesWhat is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

The Federal Government has announced in its 2021-2022 budget the “patent box tax regime” (Regime).  The Regime is in effect a $206 million boost to Australian biotech and medtech innovators (Research Areas) via the implementation of a concessional corporate tax rate.

The Regime in detail

The Regime’s implementation will see corporations pay a concessional tax rate of 17% on income derived directly from new and qualifying patented inventions across the Research Areas.  Typically, the standard rates of 30% or 25% for small and medium companies, would otherwise apply.  The rationale for the implementation of the scheme is founded in Australia’s demonstrated strength for innovation across the Research Areas.  In particular, that Australia maintains a healthcare system receptive to innovation, well-funded research institutes and strong regulatory protections surrounding intellectual property make it an attractive country to undertake research and development activities.

How to qualify for the Regime

The 2021-22 Budget Factsheet, produced by the Federal Government, highlights that only patents which were applied for and subsequently granted post budget announcement will be eligible for the Regime.  In addition, the Federal Government has stated its intention to ensure the Regime meets internationally accepted standards on patent boxes and will accordingly be following the relevant OECD guidelines.  Thus, to be eligible for the Regime, corporations need to both develop a patentable invention in respect of the Research Areas.

The Regime will be in effect from 1 July 2022, with the tax concession being made available in respect of patents applied for post 11 May 2021.  Further, the concession will only be available to income which is derived in Australia directly due to the patent.  The significance of this rule is that manufacturing, branding or other income producing business activities related to the patent but not directly derived from the patent will be taxed at the standard tax rate.

Patentable invention

Section 18 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act) sets out the prerequisites to an invention being patentable. They are:

  • a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies;
  • when compared with the prior art base as it existed before the priority date of that claim is novel and involves an inventive step
  • is useful; and
  • was not secretly used in the patent area before the priority date of that claim by certain persons connected to the invention.

Of the above criteria, it is important to understand the phrases ‘manner of manufacture’ and ‘priority date.’

The phrase ‘manner of manufacture’ has an established historical foundation in section 6 of the English Statute of Monopolies.  More recently, the High Court of Australia in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents held that an invention will be a manner of manufacture where it is ‘a proper subject of the letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies’.  This phrase essentially requires that the invention meet the principles in section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.  Those principles require that the invention belong to the ‘useful arts’, provide material advantage and add value to the country in an economic endeavour.  Thus, these are the requirements an invention must meet before it can be considered a ‘manner of manufacture’.

Section 43(2)(b) of the Act defines that the priority date is typically the date of the filing of the specification, which for those corporations looking to utilise the Regime, will be a patent.  Given the Regime is confined to inventions in respect of the Research Area, the typical priority date as described may not apply.  In circumstances where an invention involves micro-organisms, the priority date may become a complex matter prescribed by both the Act and the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth).

Takeaways

The Federal Government has implemented a widely and internationally heralded patent box tax concession aimed to drive research and development across the biological and medical technology industries.  The scope of the patent box is narrow although clear in its expression and, resultantly, a large number of biotech and medtech firms will be eligible for large tax concessions.

Links and further references

Legislation

Section 18 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Section 43(2)(b) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)
Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth)
Section 6 of the English Statute of Monopolies

Cases

National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67

Further information about the patent box tax incentive

If you need advice on whether your invention may qualify your company for the concessional tax rate, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

Doyles Recommended TMT Lawyer 2024

Related insights about the patent box tax incentive

  • Understanding contributory liability for patent infringement

    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.

    Read more …

  • Cross-border licensing – Maxim Media Inc. v Nuclear Enterprises

    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…

    Read more …

  • Misuse of confidential information in source code

    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.

    Read more …

  • Federal Court requirements for electronic discovery and metadata

    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.

    Read more …

  • Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses

    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…

    Read more …

  • “User principle” damages for breach of copyright

    “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?

    Read more …

  • Ed Sheeran wins “Shape of You” copyright infringement lawsuit

    Ed Sheeran wins “Shape of You” copyright infringement lawsuit

    This article examines the legal test for copyright infringement in Australia, using Ed Sheeran’s Court case in the UK as an example. Find out how the Courts determine when a song is a copy of another and what the implications are for musicians.

    Read more …

  • Use of competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Use of competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.

    Read more …

  • Hermès sues artist over NFTs of Birkin bags

    Hermès sues artist over NFTs of Birkin bags

    Explore the implications of virtual artworks created with the help of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and how this has caused a legal battle between a renowned fashion house and an American artist. Learn more about the copyright and trade mark infringement issues, and the implications of this case for the future of digital art.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend