New Zealand: TPP will bring laws in line with Australia
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mary Till, a former legal advisor at the USPTO who has joined Finnegan this week, is looking forward to providing clients with a USPTO perspective
IP in-house counsel who receive lots of pitches from AI vendors explain how they review them – or why they ignore them
Anna Sosis discusses the importance of IP education and explains why, away from IP, she could see herself becoming a mindfulness teacher
Cross-border judicial collaboration and EU copyright were hot topics on the second day of the EUIPO’s 5th IP Case Law Conference
Nancy Linck, who is 82, explains why she found something new to excite her at Carmichael IP
On day one of the EUIPO’s Case Law Conference, delegates heard why single-letter trademarks are weak and received an update on the EU’s design law shakeup
High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
Gift this article