Since 2001, Australia has had a second tier innovation patent system that provides a very fast patent grant with a limited term, delayed examination and no obviousness test, but rather a reduced innovative step test. The system was introduced to attempt to stimulate innovation in Australian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) by providing an easy, quick and inexpensive way to achieve protection for
The Australian Council of Intellectual Property (ACIP) has announced another review of the innovation patents system. This review will again look at options in dealing with the innovation patents system, where issues, including the granting of patents that lack an inventive step test (so they are otherwise obvious), has led to substantial frictions in trade
Regular readers may remember our article of December 2012 regarding the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) review of the Australian Designs Act 2003. Following on from that review, we wish to advise that ACIP have now released their Issues Paper and the following areas have been highlighted for comment: Duration of design protection Grace
As many practitioners would be aware, the Australian Designs Act 2003 is currently under review by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP), in order to determine its effectiveness since implementation in 2004. Shelston IP has been assisting ACIP with this review and to date we have made comments and recommendations along the following lines.
Australia’s unique innovation patent system provides inventors with a useful tool for protecting lower level innovations, thereby plugging the gap between the protection available under the registered design system and that afforded by the standard patents regime. This is consistent with the original objectives of the legislation, which sought to achieve this outcome when replacing the previous
We previously reported that the Australian biotechnology/pharmaceutical patent landscape was in a state a flux. At that time, we were awaiting the recommendations of a Senate Inquiry into the patenting of genes and biological materials. Since then, the recommendations of that Inquiry have been made public. In addition, there have been a number of other