OCTOBER 2008
Your guide to oppositions worldwide
Managing IP asked correspondents in six jurisdictions that either have, or are considering introducing, pre- or post-grant opposition to address the key questions for patent owners
| One-minute read |
| The introduction of post-grant opposition is an important part of the patent reforms being discussed in the US. Many patent owners welcome an initiative that could relieve pressure on the courts and provide applicants and challengers with more cost-effective means for resolving disputes. But, as the extensive discussion over the reforms has made clear, the details of how such a system should work are controversial. Meanwhile, Japan has recently abolished a similar procedure for challenging patent applications. As US legislators debate patent reform, Managing IP asked practitioners from Australia, Canada, China, Europe and India to look at how their pre- or post-grant systems work in practice, as well as how they might be improved. Correspondents from the US also provide an update on the latest developments in Congress. While most of the offices profiled here provide predictable, accessible and inexpensive procedures for patent owners, there remain concerns, particularly about how long oppositions can take. |
Australia: Pre-grant oppositions
1) Opposition
Australia has had a robust pre-grant opposition system for many decades. The current procedures are regulated by the Patents Act 1990, the Patents Regulations 1991, relevant Federal and High Court cases and decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The rest of this article is available to subscribers only. Subscribe today for full access to this article.
Alternatively take a free trial, giving you access to the current issue's contents*
If you are already a subscriber, please log in below to access the rest of this article.
*excludes some surveys and articles.