The patent system is complex and there are many different strategies that you can adopt to secure protection in the territories that you are interested in commercially. In many cases, however, the recommended first step is to file a provisional patent application for your invention in Australia.
Once filed, the provisional application provides you with a ‘priority date’ for your invention that is valid in almost all major patent jurisdictions. This is the date at which your invention’s validity will subsequently be tested.
Filing a provisional application has many advantages:
1. It buys you more time
Once filed, you can delay taking any further steps with the patenting process for up to 12 months. You can use this time to test and improve your invention and evaluate its commercial viability. You may, for example, want to start marketing and selling your product or speak to potential customers, suppliers, partners or investors. Any disclosures of the invention described in your application during this period will not affect your subsequent ability to obtain patent protection for it.
One or more ‘complete’ patent applications based on your provisional will need to be filed before the end of the 12 month period.
2. It keeps your options open
There are usually various paths that you can take to secure patent protection in each of your territories of interest. You may, for example, decide to file individual complete patent applications in each territory before the 12 month deadline. Alternatively, you may decide to file one or more regional applications (e.g., a European patent application) or an international PCT patent application.
Filing a provisional application reserves you the right to pursue any of these options.
3. It defers patenting costs
Filing a provisional application also pushes out the costs associated with filing and prosecuting complete patent applications by a further 12 months.
4. Your invention is not published
Once filed, the specification filed with your provisional application is not published by the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia). This allows you to keep your invention hidden from the eyes of competitors should you want to for strategic reasons.
If you decide not to file any complete applications by the end of the initial 12 month period, then the specification will never be published. This may allow you to keep your invention protected as a trade secret.
5. You can incorporate improvements into the complete(s)
If you conceive any improvements to your invention during the initial 12 month period, then provided that you keep these confidential you may incorporate them into each of the complete application(s) subsequently filed. Provisional applications are, therefore, especially beneficial if you are at an early stage with your product R&D.
6. International type search
Filing a provisional application also entitles you to request IP Australia to carry out an international-type search for the invention described in your application. This is broadly equivalent to the search that IP Australia initially undertakes when an international (PCT) patent application is filed. The results of this search may reveal prior art that you were not previously aware of and can help you decide whether and how to continue with the patenting process.
Australian brand owners typically seek overseas trade mark protection one of two ways. Firstly, individual applications may be filed in each overseas country where protection is required. Alternatively, a single international application may be filed under the Madrid Protocol.
This post considers some advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
If the list of countries is small and only a few or no issues are encountered during prosecution, this approach can prove to be the cheapest and simplest.
Individually filed overseas applications may be able to claim the priority date of a related Australian application if the relevant countries are signatory to the Paris Convention and the overseas applications are made within six months of the Australian application’s filing date.
If protection in a large number of countries is required, filing individual applications can quickly become expensive and complex. If prosecution issues arise, trade mark agents appointed in each relevant territory will need to tackle them.
Application, translation/transliteration and registration costs may also be incurred on a per country basis. If any administrative details of the applications (or subsequent registrations) need to be updated, these must also be executed per country.
An international application can be filed in Australia under the Madrid Protocol provided that a related registration or application for the relevant trade mark exists in Australia. The process is commenced by filing a single application, in English, designating the countries where protection is initially required.
After a formalities check has been completed, the international registration is then recorded. Each designated country then proceeds to examine the international registration. The registration must pass examination and opposition in each territory, under the country’s trade mark laws and procedure, before enforceable rights are obtained in the territory.
If protection in many territories is needed (typically three or more), pursuing a Madrid Protocol application is often the most streamlined and cheapest. Firstly, only one set of fees needs to be paid. The applicant is also notified, centrally, about any examiner objections or oppositions received in each designated territory. If the registration is refused in an individual territory, this doesn’t affect its status in other designated territories.
Changes to administrative details of the international registration, such as the owner’s name, address, renewals and recordal of assignments, can also be conducted centrally in Australia. If protection is subsequently required in additional countries, these can be added to the international registration.
An international registration can also be converted into a national application in any individual designated country if it becomes necessary to do so for legal or commercial reasons.
Not all countries are signatory to the Madrid Protocol. It is worth noting, however, that the list of signatories is considerable and includes, notably, China, USA and (collectively) the EU.
All registration fees are non-refundable and must be paid up front. If the registration receives objections or oppositions in a designated country, a local agent will likely need to be appointed to tackle the issues under the country’s laws.
An international registration is also dependent on the Australian registration that it is based on for five years after filing. If the Australian registration lapses, ceases or is revoked or amended during this period, then the international registration ends in all designated countries. A third party competitor can, therefore, seek revocation of an international registration by conveniently attacking just the Australian registration.
This post compares and contrasts the evidence requirements for patent oppositions in Australia and New Zealand.
Procedure and timing
In both countries, a person seeking to oppose the grant of a patent is entitled to file evidence in support of their case.
In Australia, for standard patents, the opponent has three months from filing their statement of grounds and particulars to file their supporting evidence. For innovation patents, the opponent must file their evidence contemporaneously with their notice of opposition and statement of grounds and particulars.
In New Zealand, the procedure is a little different because the patent applicant must be given a chance to file a counter-statement to the opponent’s opposition notice and statement of case before the opponent may file their evidence. If a counter-statement is served on the opponent, the opponent then has four months to file their supporting evidence. An opponent in New Zealand is, therefore, able to peruse the applicant’s counter-arguments before filing their evidence. This gives them an opportunity to obtain further evidence, or perhaps make necessary adjustments/improvements to the presentation of their existing evidence, before filing it. In my opinion, the New Zealand opposition process is, therefore, more opponent-friendly than the Australian one, at least in these early stages.
In Australia, once an applicant has received all of the opponent’s evidence and a notice from the Commissioner of Patents that all evidence is filed, the applicant is then given three months to file its evidence in answer. Once the opponent has received all such evidence and similar notice from the Commissioner of Patents, the opponent is then given two months to file its evidence in reply to the applicant’s evidence. The New Zealand procedure is materially the same as this, albeit with some variations to applicable deadlines. In New Zealand, after the applicant has received all of the opponent’s evidence, they are given four months to file, and serve on the opponent, their evidence in support of their case. The opponent then has three months to file, and serve on the applicant, their evidence in strict reply to the applicant’s evidence.
In both countries, the ability of the parties to an opposition to file evidence in addition to the evidence described above is substantially restricted.
In Australia, for oppositions commencing before 15 April 2013, a party may request leave to file further evidence. The Commissioner of Patents will have regard to several factors when deciding whether or not to allow the request, including whether the evidence could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and, if allowed, would probably have an important influence on the case.
For oppositions commencing after 15 April 2013, no formal provisions for filing further evidence are available. A party is, however, entitled to submit further information and ask the Commissioner of Patents to use its general discretion to rely on the information in the opposition. The Commissioner may not rely on the information unless the parties have been given an opportunity to make representations about the information.
In New Zealand, further evidence may only be filed if a party applies to file it out of time and the Commissioner of Patents grants the request. The Commissioner may only grant the request if genuine and exceptional circumstances justify doing so and the evidence could not have been filed earlier.
Form and format
In Australia, evidence must be submitted in the form of a written declaration, which does not necessarily have to be statutory declaration. New Zealand imposes more formal requirements and requires evidence to be submitted in the form of a statutory declaration or affidavit. Both countries make provision for the giving of oral evidence at opposition hearings.
Mann IP is a boutique patent attorney firm and, as the firm’s principal, I work with innovators in a diverse range of technical fields. One of my particular areas of expertise, however, is software and computer-implemented inventions.
Prior to becoming a patent attorney, I worked for several years as a professional software and systems engineer. Originally, I started out in 2001 as a researcher at HP Labs in Bristol, UK. I worked in a team that was developing software in the field of pervasive computing, which is now more fashionably referred to as the “Internet of things”. One of my prototypes, Cooltown Notes, received a fair amount of publicity at the time and there are still a few articles about my work lying around on the web. See, for example, Mike Elgan’s Computerworld article here
(Section Google is building HP's 'Cooltown'
I guess that was my 15 minutes!
I later moved into the videogames industry, where I worked as a programmer, before joining a visual effects company in London which became what is now Framestore
. Seven million lines of code later, I packed myself off to law school and started a long chain of life events that led to me becoming a registered patent and trade marks attorney in Australia.
As an attorney, I thoroughly enjoy blending law with technology and working with innovators from all walks of life. I must confess, however, that I occasionally do miss the creative process of software development. Luckily, however, I now get to work with some great developers, both locally and overseas. In the past, I have worked with engineers who have conceived systems and algorithms in technical fields that include networked resource management, hardware virtualization and GPU-level graphics processing. I also still keep my hand in programming in my “spare” time and the propeller at the top of my cap is still capable of spinning pretty fast.
The laws relating to software and business method inventions are ever topical and continually evolving. If you’re developing in this space and would like to discuss in confidence if and how IP may be able to protect you, then please get in touch to arrange a free no obligation consultation.
The following page
contains some further information about my software and computing practice.
Patent attorneys are frequently instructed by employers who are seeking to obtain patent protection for inventions conceived by their employees. The employer often assumes that it is automatically entitled to such protection as a matter of law. This is, however, not necessarily the case.
Australian legislation is actually silent on the rights of employers to inventions conceived by their employees. In the absence of an express agreement, the Courts have held that, generally, the employer is only entitled if the invention is created in the ordinary course of the employment. When determining whether this is the case, all circumstances of the employment relationship must be considered. This includes, for example, whether the invention affects the employer’s business, is made during work hours using the employer’s resources and, more importantly, is conceived while the employee is doing what they are actually employed to do. For the latter requirement, it is necessary to consider whether the employee is under a ‘duty to invent’.
The types of employment relationships that have been considered in Australian cases broadly fall into two classes: commercial and academic.
In the British High Court decision in Patchett v Sterling (1955) 72 RPC 50 (which is accepted as good law in Australia), the existence of implied terms relating to inventions in commercial employment contracts was considered. It was held that an employee who makes an invention while undertaking their employment duties holds the invention as trustee for their employer unless the employee can demonstrate a ‘beneficial interest that the law recognises’.
However, when an employee develops an invention outside of their regular duties (with or without using the employer’s resources) the employer is not necessarily entitled to it. Even express contractual terms in an employment contract relating to ownership of inventions may not be sufficient to affect this. For example, in Electrolux Ltd v Hudson  FSR 312 the court decided that an assignment clause in an employment contract that was in the employer’s favour was too broad to be enforceable.
When an employee of an academic institution creates an invention while pursuing commercial endeavours, the employee may well be entitled to patent ownership. For example, in Victoria University  60 IPR 392 two academics employed by a university developed and patented an online computer system. The Court held that the patented subject matter fell substantially outside of the scope of academic activities ordinarily pursued by the university. This was the case even despite finding that the invention was ‘germane to and useful for the employer’s business’. The university was, therefore, not able to claim any contractual rights to the invention.
It is common for employees of academic institutions to undertake research in addition to their normal teaching responsibilities. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the employee is under a duty to invent. In University of Western Australia v Gray  FCAFC 116, it was found that the university was not entitled to patents relating to inventions conceived by the respondent, Dr Gray, during his employment at the university. Dr Gray’s employment terms required him to teach, supervise work in his field, conduct research and stimulate research amongst staff and students. They did not, however, expressly require him to invent.
The university argued that a duty to research implies a duty to invent. This was, however, dismissed by the Court for several reasons. This included because the outcome of any research is new knowledge or discovery, which is not necessarily patentable. The university’s researchers also enjoyed the freedom to publish research outcomes, which potentially hinders the patentability of their research. Dr Gray was also expected to, and did, collaborate with and solicit funding from external bodies.
The university also argued that academic employment contracts should not be treated any differently to those of ordinary commercial enterprises. The Court, however, identified significant differences in the nature of operation of universities and other organisations. Particularly, it was noted that universities primarily serve a public purpose and provide an environment where academic staff enjoy considerable freedoms in respect to research topics pursued and the choice and manner of publication of research.
In the absence of express contractual terms, employers are not automatically entitled to inventions created by their employees. An employer considering patent protection should always carry out careful due diligence to confirm that they are so entitled and fix any issues as early as possible. This includes by requiring the relevant inventors to execute written assignments in the employer’s favour.
Australian patent applicants considering protection in Europe should familiarise themselves with the proposed new Unified Patent Court (UPC) that may be coming into effect this year.
The UPC is a new European court system that will have jurisdiction to conduct infringement and revocation proceedings for all European patents, including the proposed new European unitary patents. Decisions of the UPC will be binding across all participating states.
Having centrally conducted litigation and revocation proceedings will provide some advantages to patentees in Europe. Currently, under the existing European Patent Convention (EPC) system, national courts of member states are competent to decide on the infringement and validity of European patents. This can lead to diverging decisions, lack of legal certainty and so-called “forum shopping” by persons seeking to assert and attack the validity of European patents. The single UPC will, hopefully, resolve these issues and create a single body of consistent procedural and substantive case law.
On the other hand, it is possible that centrally conducted proceedings may, in certain circumstances, cause problems for patentees. They may, for example, find themselves having to defend a patent in a foreign country where the proceedings are not necessarily conducted in their first language. Also, having a unitary patent invalidated in the UPC will lead to loss of protection in all member states of the system.
The legislation establishing the UPC provides that all existing European patents will automatically come under its exclusive jurisdiction. This will, however, be subject to transitional arrangements. For a period of seven years after the legislation comes into force, infringement and revocation actions for existing European patents will still be able to be brought before a competent national court of an EPC member state. Also, it appears that proprietors and applicants of European patents that are granted or applied for during this transitional period will also be able to opt out of (and opt back into) the exclusive competence of the UPC freely during the transitional period.
The UPC won’t come into effect unless and until all participating signatory states have ratified the system. A commencement date of 1 December 2017 was initially anticipated but 2018 is looking more likely.
In an effort to (once again!) raise the bar for Australian patents, it would appear to be the case that the Australian Government is currently intent on modifying Australia’s patent system so that it is more aligned with the laws and procedure of the European Patent Office (EPO).
Further to our earlier post about the proposed reforms to inventive step, the Government has also recently announced
that it supports seeking legislative amendments that will require patent applicants to identify the technical features of the invention in their patent claims. The Government also proposes to update the Patent Office’s procedures so that the technical features of an invention must be considered when its novelty and inventive step is evaluated during prosecution.
It is not currently clear what amounts to “technical features” and, unless properly clarified in the relevant legislation, this will likely cause significant uncertainty and woes for patent applicants and their advising attorneys. I suspect that at least part of the policy behind these changes is to equip the Australian courts and Patent Office with some flexibility to adopt the principles and approach of the EPO when assessing inventive step, particularly so in relation to software and business-related inventions.
Currently, the patentability of software and business method inventions is determined in Australia by reference to principles established in a substantial body of case law (which I’ll save for another post one day). Underpinning these cases is a core requirement that in order to be patentable an invention must constitute a “manner of manufacture”. This is a rather vague phrase which has its roots in The Statute of Monopolies
, an antiquated English statute repealed many moons ago. This vagueness has, however, given the Australian courts a considerable freedom to define the scope of what does, and does not, constitute a patentable invention.
At the EPO, when software and business methods are being evaluated the non-patentable subject matter test is combined with the inventive step test. Firstly, the EPO identifies the technical and non-technical features of the claimed invention. They then consider if the technical features solve a technical problem. Finally, the EPO considers if the technical features would have been obvious to a skilled person in light of the technical problem and the prior art.
The Australian Government’s proposed changes in relation to “technical features” may prove to be a step in getting our Patent Office (and Courts) to adopt the EPO's approach.
Australian trade mark laws may soon be amended so that it is easier to have trade marks that are not in use removed from the register.
Unlike some other jurisdictions, a trade mark owner in Australia is not required to file evidence of use in order to keep their registration in force. If, however, the trade mark is not actually used then the registration may become vulnerable to non-use applications. The relevant legislation provides that anyone may have a trade mark removed from the register in respect to particular good/services relating to the registration if they can show that the trade mark has not been used in good faith in Australia for such goods and/or services and either:
- the non-use has continued for an unbroken period of three years ending one month before the non-use application is filed; and/or
- when the trade mark was applied for, the applicant did not intend to use (or authorise somebody else to use) the trade mark in such manner, or assign the trade mark to a company for it to use the trade mark in such manner.
A non-use action under ground b. can be commenced any time after the trade mark is applied for. Proving that the applicant lacked the requisite intention to use the trade mark at the application date is, however, difficult to achieve.
Currently, a non-use action under ground a. can only be commenced five years after the trade mark is applied for. The Australian Government has, however, publicly announced that it supports reducing this minimum period from five years to three years. This is because the Government considers that the trade marks register is 'cluttered' with trade marks that are not in use which, potentially, reduces the scope for people genuinely wanting to use such marks.
More information about the Government’s position on this matter can be found here
As previously blogged, in August last year the Australian Government released a response to an inquiry carried out by its advisory body (the Productivity Commission) into Australia’s IP system. Significant changes to patent law were proposed in the response. This included raising the threshold required for inventive step so that it reflects that of the European Patent Office.
The Government has published a set of consultation papers (available here
) which explore possible ways of implementing the changes. In relation to inventive step, four options are considered:
- Amend the Australian Patent Act 1990 (Cth) so that it directly reflects Article 56 of the European Patent Convention. The Act would be amended to state that an invention only involves an inventive step if, having regard to the prior art base, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art.
- Implement option 1, but also amend the definition of 'prior art base' in the Act to provide clarity and assistance with interpretation. This option would give the Australian Patent Office and courts some flexibility to apply tests other than the problem-solution approach that is taken by the EPO.
- Implement option 2, but also amend the Act so that the Commissioner of Patents (NB. not the courts) would be required to determine if an invention provides a solution to a technical problem. This maintains the flexibility afforded to the courts in option 2 but seeks to compel the Commissioner to follow the EPO’s approach during prosecution. The intent here is to give patent applicants certainty and predictability of examination outcomes.
- Define inventive step prescriptively in the legislation to match the EPO’s problem-and-solution approach.
The Government also proposes amending the Explanatory Memorandum of the Act to clarify that the European ‘obvious to try’ test may, in some cases, be appropriate to apply and that the ‘scintilla of invention’ and ‘directly led as a matter of course’ tests adopted by the Australian courts should no longer be followed.
Interested parties are invited to make written submissions in response to the papers by Friday 17 November 2017
The Australian Government has released draft legislation for public comment which includes measures to abolish Australia’s innovation patent system.
In August last year, the Government released a response to an inquiry conducted by its advisory body, the Productivity Commission, which proposed significant changes to Australian patent law. These changes included the phasing out of innovation patents.
Innovation patents have long been controversial in Australia. To obtain an innovation patent, an invention must be useful and new. However, unlike standard patents, the invention does not
need to involve an inventive step. Instead, the differences between what has been created and what has been done before merely need to affect the way the invention works in a material way.
The draft legislation (which can be read here
) includes transitional arrangements to maintain existing rights.