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

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.

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






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

"In the end, the hearing, which was scheduled to be heard over four days, lasted little more than one and a half, a… https://t.co/NxxLefnsFv

Jan 18 2018 03:44 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

RT @mdloney: UPC update: German Bar Association says constitutional complaint inadmissible https://t.co/TLY4ihKGH6 https://t.co/DMhYPqSOlA

Jan 18 2018 02:24 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Our weekly IP news round-up includes Starbucks winning an EU General Court case, an Apple motion to sanction at the… https://t.co/xkwEDzG0UL

Jan 18 2018 01:59 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

null null null

End of Year 2017

Tribal sovereign immunity: Taking a wrecking ball to the IPR system

The lawyer behind Allergan’s controversial transfer of patents to a Native American tribe says others are “lining up to do deals”. But, Michael Loney asks, will the PTAB rule that sovereign immunity applies in these types of deals?



Most read articles

Supplements