IP Australia Calls For Feedback On Innovation Patent System

by Mary Swire, for LawAndTax-News.com, Hong Kong

05 October 2005

The Australian government late last month published an issues paper examining the progress of the innovation patent system, four years after it was introduced.

The innovation patent system was brought in to replace the unpopular petty patent system in 2001, and in addition to allowing inventors to apply for IP rights for lower level innovations, allows applicants to make up to five claims (rather than just three under the old system), and allows for a protection term of eight years (as opposed to six under the petty patent system).

When the new regime was introduced, the Australian authorities pledged to conduct a review within five years.

IP Australia, in the issues paper published to fulfil this pledge, explained that:

"Specifically, we would welcome comments on the following issues:

1. How well has the innovation patent system achieved the Australian Government’s objectives to provide a form of protection that is quick, easy to obtain and relatively inexpensive for lower level or incremental inventions that are not sufficiently inventive to qualify for standard patent protection?
2. Are the innovation patent system’s objectives still relevant for Australian business and are they likely to remain so in the future?
3. To what extent has the innovation patent system allowed individuals and small to medium enterprises to develop inventions that are not sufficiently inventive to qualify for standard patent?
4. How effective and appropriate is the “innovative step” (Section 7(4) of the Patents Act) in meeting the requirements for a lower inventive threshold than that required for a standard patent?
5. How effective is the 8 year term in balancing the competing needs of the owners and the public?
6. How appropriate is the limitation to 5 claims in allowing applicants to define the scope of the invention?
7. What effects, if any, has the granting of uncertified patents for lower level inventions had on competition in the market place?
8. What has been your experience with the process involved in applying for and/or certifying an innovation patent?
9. How effective or appropriate are the enforcement and revocation provisions for innovation patents?
10. What effects, if any, have resulted from applicants having standard and innovation patents having claims with similar or overlapping subject matter?
11. How well is the innovation patent system understood, particularly by small to medium enterprises? For example is the difference between certified and uncertified innovation patents understood?"

Comment is invited from interested parties by 16 December 2005.

Recommended