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

  • Interlocutory injunctions and undertakings as to damages

    Interlocutory injunctions and undertakings as to damages

    An interlocutory injunction may be sought by a patent owner to stop a defendant from infringing their patent. This article examines the two elements that must be established by an Applicant and the considerations the Court will take into account when making its decision.

    Read more …

  • Calculating account of profits for trade mark infringement

    Calculating account of profits for trade mark infringement

    This article examines the calculation of damages when an account of profits is awarded as a remedy for trade mark infringement. It covers the general principle, the proportionality rule, and the deduction of overhead costs.

    Read more …

  • Non-fungible tokens – the new way to own IP?

    Non-fungible tokens – the new way to own IP?

    Discover the rising phenomenon of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and how they can help protect your Intellectual Property (IP). Learn how NFTs works, its benefits for rights holders, and potential legal issues. Get the full picture here.

    Read more …

  • Unjustified threats of trade mark infringement

    Unjustified threats of trade mark infringement

    Comprehensive list of Australian Court decisions and related legislation covering corporate, technology, intellectual property, commercial, employment, negligence, confidentiality, copyright, moral rights, user generated content, click wrap/browse wrap, trademarks, torts and social media law.

    Read more …

  • What are moral rights?

    What 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…

    Read more …

  • How much copying results in copyright infringement?

    How much copying results in 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.

    Read more …

  • What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?

    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.

    Read more …

  • Accessory liability for copyright infringement

    Accessory liability for 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.

    Read more …

  • Palmer breaches copyright – liable for $1.5m AUD in damages

    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.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend