Intellectual property protection

What is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?

HomePrivate: BlogIP litigation and disputesWhat is the proposed “patent box” tax incentive?

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

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

  • Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

    Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

    The question of patentability of so called “computer-implemented” inventions has been the subject of legal debate in Australia for a number of years.  The September 2018 of the Full Court of the Federal Court in  Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v Infotrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 was long anticipated by intellectual property lawyers and patent…

    Read more …

  • Phasing out the innovation patent system

    Phasing out the innovation patent system

    The Senate has recommended a bill that could have a major impact on small and medium-sized businesses. Find out what changes are proposed and what it could mean for your intellectual property.

    Read more …

  • Software litigation – how much evidence is sufficient?

    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.

    Read more …

  • Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    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…

    Read more …

  • 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.

    Read more …

  • 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.

    Read more …

  • Security for legal costs in patent invalidity cross-claims

    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.

    Read more …

  • Use of competitor’s confidential information

    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…

    Read more …

  • Patent infringement lawyer

    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.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend