InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

Australia: Government adopts Productivity Commission’s anti-patent principles




The Australian government has released its response to the Productivity Commission's Inquiry into Intellectual Property. The initial report included a number of restrictive patent provisions which the government has agreed to accept.

Firstly, the government has adopted the recommendation to abolish the innovation patent system. The innovation patent was introduced with the intent, similar to the German utility model system, to provide a reduced form of protection. However, it has been utilised in unintended ways by patentee litigants to obtain far-reaching protection and effective advantages during litigation. Rather than seek to modify the innovation patent, the government will seek to abolish it altogether. As these provisions are unlikely to operate retrospectively, patentees should consider filing innovation patents before the changes are introduced.

Further, the government has agreed to incorporate a potentially hazardous objects clause into the Patents Act 1990, which fails to acknowledge a core purpose of the patent system, namely to encourage inventors to come forward with the disclosure of their inventions in return for a limited monopoly. Rather, the Productivity Commission's suggested objects clause is more concerned with the Australian social benefits of patents. Unfortunately, any objects clause is likely to cause litigants extra costs in the courts as another hurdle to overcome.

The government has also accepted the Productivity Commission's statements to again revise the definition of obviousness to the highest standard it could find, making it more difficult to obtain patent protection. While the legislation and Patent Office has moved towards the European standard in recent years, the Commission appears to be seeking an even higher standard than that required in Europe. Given the Productivity Commission was not made up of practitioners experienced in global obviousness standards, and their artificial operation, it is likely that patentees will again be forced into complex legal argument as to the details of the new standard.

The government has also accepted the Productivity Commission's suggestions that technical features of a claim should be identified. Of course, the definition of technical will no doubt be vague and indefinite.

Overall, it is disappointing that the government has adopted proposals that seek to stifle the patent system. Patentees should move quickly before the legislation is introduced.

Treloar-Peter-100
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


Comments






Article Comments

How about a non destructive patent system?

It will see MANY more successful inventions.

And fewer destroyed inventors.

Stuart

www.IPROAG.org, reform@iproag.org

Stuart21 Oct 07, 2017

profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

The Autolex Automotive Legal Forum, Detroit – open for registrations, with @ManagingIP. Click… https://t.co/DAxSRRJ0Y4

Oct 23 2017 03:23 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Congratulations Grant! https://t.co/6Apm3xHAR5

Oct 23 2017 03:13 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

RT @FordhamIP: Posner On Copyright: 10 Cases To Remember by @dkluft https://t.co/2WDXWFr5Rm

Oct 23 2017 02:44 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

null null null

October 2017

Courts grapple with scope of patent protection

The Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly introduced a doctrine of equivalents and arguably also established a doctrine of prosecution history estoppel in the UK. We look at the law across Europe, and the impact the decision might have. Kingsley Egbuonu, Michael Loney and James Nurton set the scene



Most read articles

Supplements