ACIP’s final report into Innovation Patents has been published.
Key points / recommendations:
- ACIP can’t find evidence to support conclusion that innovation patents promote innovation
- ACIP recommends that, if the innovation patent system be retained:
- there be a new “innovation” threshold:
amending the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to raise the level of innovation to a level above the current innovative step level, but below the inventive step level that applies to standard patents. A suitable level of innovative step would be provided by the test of inventiveness described by the High Court of Australia in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd  HCA 9: (1980) 144 CLR 253; (1980) 29 ALR 29 with a modification to that test to include the current definition of what is relevant CGK. In order to be innovative an invention would need to be non-obvious by reference to CGK either within or outside the patent area but not by reference to prior art information that is not part of CGK at the priority date of the relevant claims of the innovation patent. This would be a lower threshold than is applied to standard patents, where the invention must be non-obvious by reference to the CGK and any piece of prior art.
I suppose that would at least be a test that requires some advance over the prior art and is (at least in theory) something which those of us who started growing up under the 1952 Act should be familiar with.
- a request for examination must be filed within 3 years
- the term “patent” be reserved for certified “patents” only;
- exclude from innovation patents “all methods, all processes and all systems “.
The Government has indicated it will respond in due course.
ACIP’s Innovation Patent Inquiry page.
Link to the Final Report (pdf).