Australia: Patents Office introducing amendments to Stifle Patents
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

Australia: Patents Office introducing amendments to Stifle Patents

IP Australia is proceeding at pace with implementing the Government's response to the Productivity Commission's Report to severely curtail the rights of patent holders.

The proposed legislation and implementation is directed at the introduction of a number of problematic changes:

1) The abolition of the Innovation Patent system. The Innovation Patent system included a lower level inventiveness threshold similar to the Utility Model System of Germany, China and other countries. Allowing for lower inventiveness patents was deemed undesirable by the Productivity Commission and they recommended abolition. It is now important for applicants to seriously consider filing innovation patents before the repeal legislation is enacted.

2) Raising the inventive step requirements, somewhere in excess of the test of the European Patent Office, as a further restriction on grant. This is directed at increasing the hurdle requirement for grant.

3) Requiring applicants to disclose the "technical features" of their invention. This is an attempt to codify in legislation the European precedent of technical features. No doubt this will cause an excessive extra layer of unnecessary work for applicants.

4) Introducing an objects clause to the Patents Act 1990. Whilst the proposed clause is ephemeral, the likely subsequent discussion by patent litigants will increase the burden of litigation.

5) Making it easier to invoke the Crown Use provisions or Compulsory Licensing provisions. Again, restricting the rights of patent holders to fully exploit their patented inventions.

Whilst the Patents Office is conducting some public consultation, it is highly likely the Office will proceed with each of the above proposals.

Peter Treloar

Shelston IP

Level 21, 60 Margaret Street

Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

Tel: +61 2 9777 1111

Fax: +61 2 9241 4666

email@shelstonip.com

www.shelstonip.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

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
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Gift this article