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

  • Changes to copyright protection durations

    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.

    Read more …

  • Patent revocation due to lack of novelty

    Patent revocation due to lack of novelty

    One of the often cited requirements for a patent to be granted, is that the invention as claimed must be ‘novel’ in light of the information of the day (referred to as the prior art and the common general knowledge) (section 18(1)(b)(i) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act)).  Put simply, if its been…

    Read more …

  • Patents and the threshold for registration

    Patents and the threshold for registration

    Learn about the different types of patents available in Australia, their requirements for patentability, and how to protect your invention with this article. Discover what can and cannot be patented, and the legal implications of obtaining a patent. Get the facts you need to know about patents in Australia.

    Read more …

  • Understanding patent revocation

    Understanding patent revocation

    Engaging in transfers of intellectual property? Beware of transferring goodwill too. The case of Favotto Family Restaurants Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2020] NSWSC 120 highlights the concept of goodwill and its three (3) aspects, as well as how it affects the ability to generate earnings from identifiable assets.

    Read more …

  • Interlocutory injunctions in patent dispute cases

    Interlocutory injunctions in patent dispute cases

    Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) Commissioner Falk determined in Uber investigation how the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) will assess if entities have an Australian Link to be legally bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

    Read more …

  • Contesting patent ownership between joint inventors

    Contesting patent ownership between joint inventors

    This article provides an overview of the conditions for patent grant, joint inventorship tests, and standard of proof for disputes in relation to contested patent ownership in Australia.

    Read more …

  • Is exporting a product a trade mark infringement?

    The Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) provides protection to Australian trade mark owners, but what happens when their mark is used overseas? Learn more about the protection the Trade Marks Act provides, and the remedies for infringement, by clicking through to the full article.

    Read more …

  • Is using a trade mark in AdWords considered infringement?

    Is using a trade mark in AdWords considered infringement?

    A Court concluded that a company had infringed a trade mark using Google AdWords in Veda Advantage Limited v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Limited [2016] FCA 255. Click through to learn more about the dispute, and the learning points and takeaways.

    Read more …

  • Be cautious when alleging patent infringement

    Be cautious when alleging patent infringement

    The Court weighed in on the issue of unjust threats of patent infringement and the damages that may be payable. Learn more about the importance of proving direct causation between the threat and the loss, and the implications for patent holders and infringers alike.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend