Managing Intellectual Property

Making the most of innovation patents

01 December 2004

In 2001 Australia replaced the petty patent system with a new innovation patent right. Three years on, Wayne McMaster reveals the unexpected advantages the patent offers to potential litigants

Wayne McMaster

In May 2001, Australia amended its patent legislation to remove its petty patent system and substitute a new right called the innovation patent. This system has given some unforeseen latitude for refining litigation and commercial strategies in Australia. IP Australia, the country's intellectual property office, has given the following reasons for the introduction of the innovation patent:

The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) recommended the innovation patent to government. After reviewing ACIP's recommendations, the government agreed with ACIP that there is demand for industrial property rights for those incremental or lower level inventions that would not be sufficiently inventive to qualify for standard patent protection. The government also agreed that the petty patent system was not doing the job for which it was intended: to provide an industrial property right that was relatively inexpensive, quick and easy to obtain and suited inventions with a short commercial life. A decision was therefore made to replace the petty patent...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


February 2012

Patent survey 2012

Managing IP ranks the leading patent firms around the world



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements