According to Parliament’s website, the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 passed its third reading in the Senate and has now had its first reading in the House of Representatives.
Instead of amending the definition of persons who can (potentially) claim the benefit of the online safe harbours to accord with the definition of service provider required under the Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement, it will extend the class of potential beneficiaries from carriage service providers to what may broadly be described as “the education, cultural and disability sectors”.
To implement this impending development, the Department of Communications and the Arts has released a consultation paper on on draft Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Regulations 2018 (you have to scroll down to get to the links for (a) the consultation paper itself and (b) the draft regulations).
If you are in one of those sectors or a rights holder with concerns, you need to get your submissions in by 29 June 2018.
Following the conclusion of consultations about the draft Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment Regulations (the regulations to implement the “Raising the Bar” amendments), IP Australia has published a document outlining the outcomes of the consultation process.
The document outlines what IP Australia is proposing to do/implement in relation to:
- preliminary search and opinion
- search fee
- priority date
- other things
- filing of evidence in oppositions
- extensions of time to file evidence
- fees for notice of intention to defend
defence (TM oppositions) (lid dip: Andrew Sykes)
- cooling off period for patent oppositions (not in the public interest)
- dismissing trade mark oppositions for inadequately particularised grounds
- document service
- no changes to basis for adding grounds / particulars to a notice of opposition
- no change to costs provisions
- suspension regime for patent / trade mark attorneys will be retained
- customs seizure: regulations will be amended to require importers to provide full name, telephone number and address for service in ‘claim for release’ forms
- email address will not be made mandatory
- applicants for patents will have 2 months to respond to a direction to request examination after examination has been deferred
- acceptance period after 1st report on patent application has been issued will be reduced to 12 months
- “IP Australia will not require a statement of entitlement at filing for standard patents (or at national phase entry for PCT applications). Instead, the statement will be required when the applicant requests examination, as part of the approved form.” Applicants for an innovation patent will still need to provide the statement when filing the application
- The Commissioner / Registrar will retain discretion to decide whether hearings should be decided on the papers without oral presentation
- Apparently, there are technical corrections that will be implemented to
Public Consultation Update papers
IP Australia’s Press Release
IP Australia’s helicopter summary of Raising the Bar, more links and IP Australia’s summaries for patents, copyright, trade marks and designs.
Patentology looks at the good news for SMEs and some of the things rejected, here.
Dr Summerfield has updated his marked up version of the reg.s to reflect the second tranche of the exposure draft regulations, here.
He also draws attention to the shortening time frames the exposure draft regulations will introduce.
You still need to get your comments in by 21 November 2012.
IP Australia today released the second tranche of exposure draft regulations implementing the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012.
This tranche deals with schedule 3 (reducing delays in resolving patent and trade mark applications) and schedule 6 (simplifying the IP system).
Comments still need to be submitted by 21 November 2012.
Go here, and scroll down (past the first tranche if you already have them).
Dr Summerfield prepared a marked up version of the regs as the first tranche would amend them and discussed the new search fee implications.