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:


Related insights about the patent box tax incentive

  • Ex-employees and IP protection

    Ex-employees and IP protection

    Ex-employees can be a threat to a company’s intellectual property, but with the right contractual clauses, employers can protect their trademarks, copyright, patent, and design. Learn more about how to safeguard your company’s intellectual property.

    Read more …

  • Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.

    Read more …

  • Trade mark infringement – the good faith defence

    Trade mark infringement – the good faith defence

    Navigating trade mark law can be difficult. This article explains the good faith defence and what circumstances must be fulfilled for it to be available, as well as relevant case law and further info.

    Read more …

  • IP licences and state-based transfer duty

    IP licences and state-based transfer duty

    Ipso Facto Clauses in commercial contracts are subject to a stay on enforcement as of 1 July 2018. This stay may be extended by a Court, and there are exclusions as prescribed by regulations and declarations.

    Read more …

  • Opposing a trade mark on the grounds of bad faith

    Opposing a trade mark on the grounds of bad faith

    Court found respondent infringed copyright of Dee Snider’s works, awarding AUD $1.5 million for flagrant, contumelious infringements. Not fair or satirical.

    Read more …

  • Do I have an implied software license?

    Do I have an implied software license?

    This article examines the implications of a Federal Court case, which awarded over $1.1 million in damages for unlicensed software use. Learn more about the decision and key principles for software licencing that businesses should consider.

    Read more …

  • Case study – intellectual property protection structures

    Case study – intellectual property protection structures

    Protect your valuable intellectual property and secure revenue for product development. Learn how Dundas Lawyers can help you create an intellectual property protection structure with potential benefits for your business.

    Read more …

  • The test for infringement of circuit layout rights

    The test for infringement of circuit layout rights

    This article explores the legal implications of circuit layouts, such as what qualifies as an eligible layout, the exclusive rights granted, and exceptions to infringement. Learn more by reading the case of Lumen Australia Pty Ltd v Frontline Australasia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1807, discussed in the article.

    Read more …

  • What is a Norwich Pharmacal order?

    What is a Norwich Pharmacal order?

    In situations where an innocent third party has information about conduct which may assist a litigant, an applicant apply to the Court to have that third party disclose such information.  For example, a bank which has knowledge of a transaction or conduct that would assist a litigant it may be obliged to hand over the…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend