Public input sought on patent reform
- 25 September, 2012 11:23
- Comments 3
Intellectual property watchdog IP Australia is seeking public comment on reform to Australia's patent system. The federal government is proposing changes to the Patents Act 1990 to raise the threshold for so-called 'innovation patents'.
Under Australian IP law, standard patents, which have a lifespan of 20 years, require an inventive step. Innovation patents currently require only an 'innovative step'. "It may seem like a trifling distinction, but weaker patents can create problems," said parliamentary secretary for industry and innovation, Mark Dreyfus.
Although innovation patents, which were first introduced in 2001, were designed to encourage innovation among small and medium businesses, increasingly they have been used by larger companies, particularly for IT and pharmaceuticals. Organisations have also used innovation patents as a mechanism to extend the life of standard patents, Dreyfus said.
"The potential for evergreening is of particular concern," states IP Australia's consultation paper, Innovation Patents – Raising The Step.
"Evergreening is a strategy in which companies could use Innovation Patents to effectively extend the life of their patents. In addition, the comparative ease of gaining an Innovation Patent could also help companies to create ‘patent thickets’, a wall of patents which hinders rivals' ability to invent around a given invention.
"There is a real and pressing risk that more applicants could choose to use these strategies in the future. Such strategic behaviour would likely bring Australia’s IP system into disrepute both in Australia and overseas, because it would highlight the poor balance between protection and innovative disclosure within Australia’s Innovation Patent system."
The paper notes that the proportion of innovation patents granted to Australians has fallen from 85 per cent when the system was introduced to 65 per cent in 2011.
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012, which became law in April, raised the threshold for obtaining standard patents, but left innovation patents untouched.
The consultation paper proposes replacing the 'innovative step' for innovation patents with the same inventive step test required for standard patents.
"This would align the Innovation Patent requirements with the well-known and legally-settled test for inventiveness that applies to Standard Patents. Raising the inventiveness requirement for Innovation Patents will address community concerns that the Innovation Patent system is being abused, particularly in the information technology industry."
Since the innovation patent was introduced, IT-related innovation patent applications have increased by 390 per cent, compared to a rise in applications of 150 per cent for all areas.
According to IP Australia, Delnorth Pty Ltd v Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008], which concerned flexible roadside posts, proved that innovation patents can be granted for obvious enhancements.
IP Australia has set a deadline of 25 October for public comment.
Related Articles
Join the CIO Australia group on LinkedIn. The group is open to CIOs, IT Directors, COOs, CTOs and senior IT managers.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email CIO
- Follow CIO on twitter
-
Spiceworks' free management software gets integrated MDM
-
Opinion: Why national e-health is not for everyone
-
Opinion: Why national e-health is not for everyone
-
Opinion: Why national e-health is not for everyone
-
Opinion: Why national e-health is not for everyone
-
Protecting Your Data, Intellectual Property, and Brand from Cyber Attacks
Enterprises and government agencies are under virtually constant attack today. It is clear that the cybercriminals, nation-states, and hacker activists waging these attacks are growing increasingly sophisticated and more effective in their efforts to steal and sabotage. Why are today’s security defenses failing? In this battle, your security teams are using outdated arsenal - download now to learn more. -
Governance For All - Empowering IT and Business Content Owners
Governance for all is more than an IT initiative or a goal written in a plan document; it’s a strategy that unites IT and business content owners to achieve their SharePoint goals. At its best, governance means empowering self-governance, with tools like delegated access, effective reporting, and automated policy enforcement. This white paper explains how to create a “governance for all” strategy that will enhance SharePoint adoption and its benefits to the organization. Read now. -
Spear-Phishing Email: Most Favored APT Attack Bait
This research paper presents findings on APT-related spear phishing from February to September 2012. We analysed APT-related spear-phishing emails collected throughout this period to understand and mitigate attacks. The information we gathered not only allowed us to obtain specific details on spear phishing but also on targeted attacks. We found, for instance, that 91% of targeted attacks involve spear-phishing emails, reinforcing the belief that spear phishing is a primary means by which APT attackers infiltrate target networks.
Get exclusive access to Invitation only events CIO, reports & analysis. 
Comments
Gordon
1
A great idea. Witness the farcical situation that exists at present between Apple and Samsung, where a company can be hamstrung because someone has patented a rectangle with rounded corners. Given half a chance, Apple would patent every colour and shape, and probably the alphabet as well. Patents should only be granted where there is a demonstrated advance via a unique solution. As an example, the concept of cycling back to the start of a set of pictures should not be the subject of a patent - only the methodology of implementing that should be considered.
Incidentally, it would have been most useful to have provided a link in the article to a location where the public could comment - maybe that has already been patented, so couldn't be used?
Tim
2
20 years is also a ridiculous timespan for trivial matters and given the rapid evolution of technology, enforcing a patent that is over 5 years (from a hardware perspective) is probably not even profitable....
A TIP
3
There is no evidence of evergreening. Making the innovation patents have the same level as a standard patent is just a way of killing them off and recreating the problem that . Dreeyfus should be more honest and just say that he or some in IP Australia want to kill off Innovation Patents instead of fixing them by reducing the remedies and using a proper test.