New Zealand: TPP will bring laws in line with Australia

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

New Zealand: TPP will bring laws in line with Australia

After many years of negotiation, agreement has been reached on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The free trade agreement between 12 countries – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam – is intended to liberalise trade between the regions while setting out consistent rules that make it easier for participating countries to do business.

New Zealand and Australia were early signatories to the talks, with other countries entering over the years of negotiation. Further countries are expected to sign up in the future.

Intellectual property provisions made up a small proportion of the issues negotiated, but were among the most significant for New Zealand, which has relatively low import tariffs already. Apart from concerns that the government's pharmaceutical purchasing agency Pharmac would be compromised, proposed changes to the patent system led many to expect a rise in pharmaceutical costs under the TPP.

Similar concerns were raised in Australia, which spearheaded opposition to proposed increases in data exclusivity periods. TPP will not require any changes to Australia's IP laws at all. Australia's five years of data protection for biological medicines will remain unchanged and it already has patent term extension and a life of the author plus 70 years copyright term.

Sensible debate was not aided by the media's reporting of these issues, repeatedly confusing the concepts of patent term, patent term extension and data exclusivity periods, as well as misunderstanding the implications of copyright extension.

We will need to wait until details of the agreement are published, but various sources suggest that patent term extensions must be made available for pharmaceuticals experiencing regulatory delays. The New Zealand government release says New Zealand "will have to extend the term of a particular pharmaceutical patent if there are unreasonable delays in examining the patent or getting regulatory approval. New Zealand's processes are efficient, however, so very few patent term extensions are expected, based on current practice, and only in exceptional circumstances." Although it may be rarely used, this is a potentially important change for holders of New Zealand patents but will not affect Australia, which already offers such extensions. Data exclusivity (at present five years in both Australia and New Zealand) seems unaffected.

On the trade mark front, the agreement provides safeguards to protect geographical indications. We don't yet have details of how that might look in practice.

Another new IP provision that will affect New Zealand is extension of copyright from 50 to 70 years from the death of the author (and from 50 years to 70 years from release for films or music recordings). The government estimates this to cost the country NZ$55 million ($38 million) a year in the "very long term", but that figure seems high. Not many copyright works are still being heavily commercialised in New Zealand 50 years after the author's death. Again, Australia already has a 70-year copyright term.

We will provide more information on the expected changes to New Zealand and Australia when details emerge.

Broadley_Damian

Damian Broadley

Jo Shaw


AJ Park

Level 22, State Insurance Tower

1 Willis Street, Wellington 6011

New Zealand

Tel: +64 4 473 8278

Fax: +64 4 472 3358

wellington@ajpark.com

www.ajpark.com 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article