Patents

Re-thinking the role of IP: Francis Gurry lecture

Leave a Comment / IP generally, Patents / / / , , , , ,

Last week, the 5th Francis Gurry Lecture at the University of Melbourne was given by Dr Francis Gurry, the Director-General of WIPO (and so the highest ranking Australian official in UN organisations), himself. The topic “Re-thinking the Role of IP’.

Dr Gurry’s central theme was that the context in which intellectual property operates has changed so much that the way in which we think about IP and its role in society needs to be reconsidered.

One of the key changes Dr Gurry identified was the economic shift from wealth derived from tangibles to wealth generation deriving from intangibles. As one indicator of this, Dr Gurry pointed out that US industries in the IP field accounted for some 35% of its GDP. Another indicator showed that in 1978 95% of the value of the Standard & Poors 500 came from tangible assets, down to 20% in 2010.

The second key change Dr Gurry identified was the economic shift from the West to the East. China is now the second largest investor in R & D in absolute terms in the world. Japan the third.

The third key change identified was the empowerment of non-state actors. One illustration of this was the Day the Internet went Dark. More than 115,000 websites closed or limited access. More than 2.4 million anti-SOPA tweets were generated. One of my favourite images (lid dip Marty Schwimmer was the impact on the US Congress:

sopa-pipa-one-day

We are seeing a little bit of that here.

Of course, the Department of Homeland Security, or the FBI, also flexed its muscles.

Among the many consequences arising from these changes:

  • much greater focus on IP and much greater intensity – Smartphone wars anyone, industrial espionage
  • much greater attention to what IP rights are granted for and focus mediating what is acceptable to the general public

Although not an example used by Dr Gurry, we have seen that here too. Dr Gurry did point out, however, an apparent paradox:

No one minds, it seems, someone making billions out of new social networking or media technology, but there is widespread social unease at someone making billions out of a new life-saving drug. Which outcome do we want to achieve in the innovation system?

Dr Gurry went on to explain that this changes in turn raised many questions for entitlement, appropriability and policy-making. Dr Gurry’s presentation in written form can be found here (pdf). Definitely repays reading. Lid dip @MsSamMcHugh

 

Update: A video of the lecture and the paper itself can now be found here.

Re-thinking the role of IP: Francis Gurry lecture Read More »

Innovation Patents: what to do?

Leave a Comment / Patents / / / , , , , , ,

ACIP has released an options paper on what to do about the innovation patent system.

An innovation patent is a uniquely Australian contribution towards encouraging innovation. You can get one (if you apply for it) for pretty much anything[1] unless it differs from the prior art only in ways that “make no substantial contribution to the working of the [ahem] invention” as explained by the Full Court in the Delnorth case.

As recounted in the options paper, the basic objective of the innovation patent system is to encourage and promote investment in innovation by Australian (especially) SMEs.

The options paper is full of interesting statistics and there is an accompanying economics paper, the Verve report attempting to get some empirical data. For example, only about 25% of innovation patents ever get certified. Also, more than 50% of innovation patents are allowed to lapse by the end of their third year. The proportion of innovation patents granted to foreigners is 35% and rising.

Insofar as the options paper takes a position, it would seem that there is pretty much universal agreement that the level of innovation required to get an innovation patent is too low.

The options paper also appears to discern evidence that innovation patents are being used “strategically” or “tactically”, at least by some applicants.

ACIP is now seeking your views on what to do.

ACIP itself identifies 3 broad options:

(1) do nothing (option A);

(2) abolish the innovation patent system (option B); or

(3) change the innovation patent system (option C).

Option A: do nothing

ACIP notes that it is too soon to tell how the Raising the Bar reforms will affect those seeking innovation patents. Those changes do nothing, of course, to the level of “innovative step”.

The Verve report received 517 responses to its survey of the 3,195 Australian inventors who have taken out innovation patents to protect their “inventions”. Bearing in mind that these are the people that the innovation patent system is supposed to be encouraging, ACIP notes:

The Verve survey has shown that individuals and SME user-groups appear to be generally satisfied with the innovation patent system—albeit this survey occurring prior to the full impacts of the Raising the Bar Act being felt by users of the system.

The biggest problem with this do nothing option, however, is that it doesn’t do anything to address the apparently widely recognised issue that the innovation threshold is too low.

As ACIP notes, letting people get an innovation patent in Australia for something which is not patentable anywhere else does nothing to encourage Australian businesses to compete overseas. It should also be borne in mind that an innovation patent over something will probably have the effect of meaning its price will be higher than it would otherwise have been.

Option B: abolish the innovation patent system

There is a nice catalogue of what one might think were compelling reasons why this is a good option. There is also a summary of arguments against it.

This (or a variation on it) is widely perceived to be the option proposed late last year by IP Australia. The options paper indicates that the majority of non-confidential submissions to IP Australia and to ACIP didn’t support IP Australia’s proposal.

The options paper also includes a curious page suggesting that the designs registration system could be amended to permit the registration of functional designs. I (perhaps mistakenly) had thought the Franki Committee’s recommendations were implemented by the Designs Amendment Act 1981 s 11 (inserting new s 18) and s 5 (inserting a new definition of ‘design’) and find their current embodiment in s 7(2) of the Designs Act 2003. The “problem”, if it be a problem, with designs registration is that it protects only the visual appearance of a product, not its function. The new Act doesn’t seem to be any different in that respect to the old Act and it was plainly a deliberate policy choice.[2]

Option C: change the innovation patent system

The problem here, at least insofar as the level of innovation is concerned, is what should that new level be and how on earth would the Courts ever work it out. ACIP plainly didn’t like the suggestions of the Law Council, IPTA or FICPI on this front.

The options paper also raises for further consideration changing or limiting the remedies: no injunction or no interlocutory injunctions, but continued exposure to pay damages or account for profits; limiting the ability to recover pecuniary remedies to the period after certification. Oh dear!

ACIP would like to hear your views by 4 October 2013. It is also planning to hold workshops for public consultation during September.

Options Paper here (pdf)

Verve report here

  1. Patents Act 1990 s 18(2) and (3) exclude some things from patentable subject matter and, apart from the level of innovation prescribed in s 7(4), there are a few other largely technical requirements to satisfy too.  ?
  2. See e.g. recommendations 24, 25 and 26 of the ALRC’s Designs report. Of course, the limitation of the designs registration system to visual appearance only seemed to be one of the main complaints about the system identified by the ALRC: see e.g. 2.44 of the ALRC’s report and 3.49 and 6.5.  ?

Innovation Patents: what to do? Read More »

Patentable subject matter reform

Leave a Comment / Patents / / / , , , , , , , , , ,

IP Australia has issued an Issues Paper on the proposed amendments to the Patents Act:

(1) to insert an “objects” clause; and

(2) to exclude from patentable subject matter inventions which it would be “offensive” to commercially exploit.

These plans arise out of a recommendations made by ACIP which the Government announced it accepted. The consultation now is on the wording to implement those policies.

An objects clause

The consultation paper proposes 2 alternative “objects” clauses:

Option 1

…. the purpose of the legislation as being to provide an environment that promotes Australia’s national interest and enhances the well-being of Australians by balancing the competing interests of patent rights holders, the users of technology, and Australian society as a whole.

Option 2

the purpose of the patent system is to provide an environment that enhances the well-being of Australians by promoting innovation and the dissemination of technology and by balancing the competing interests of patent applicants and patent owners, the users of technology, and Australian society as a whole.

Now, one could very well wonder what possible help either of these statements might give a court if they were enacted. The consultation paper even notes that the Parliamentary Draftsman is rather ambivalent about the value of objects clauses in general:

Some objects provisions give a general understanding of the purpose of the legislation…Other objects provisions set out the general aim or principles that help the reader to interpret the detailed provisions of the legislation.

The first option is what ACIP proposed. ACIP considered its proposal a simplified version of the Objects identified in art. 7 of TRIPS:

The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

The consultation paper thought that Option 1 does not sufficiently recognise the economic and social welfare concerns of patent law and did not sufficiently recognise the interests of patent applicants as well as patent owners (formerly known in Olde English as patentees). As the consultation paper explains:

The economic goals of the patent system are to promote economic growth, trade and investment by encouraging innovation and the dissemination of knowledge and technology.

The patent system encourages innovation by giving patentees a period of market exclusivity in which to recoup their development costs through commercialisation of their inventions. In exchange, patentees are required to disclose the details of their inventions to the public. The patent system contributes to social welfare by providing Australians with access to new technologies and developments that otherwise would not have occurred and that improve our quality of life (for example new pharmaceuticals and medical technologies and improvements to safety and waste management technologies).

However, the patent system will only meet its economic goals if the positive effects of the patent system in stimulating investment in innovation and providing society with access to new technology are balanced against the potential negative effects of patents restricting access to follow-on innovation and increasing costs, and so restricting supply of new patented technologies.

This is better, at least the first 2 paragraphs (if one bears in mind that economists – to the extent they accept the role of patents – think of the market exclusivity as providing an incentive rather than a “reward”). The third paragraph is rather more ambivalent.The danger the third paragraph raises is that it could be used as a basis for excluding something from patentability because someone might use the patent to raise prices or the other evils identified. But, while there are some provisions in the Patents Act that address, or attempt to deal with, these issues, in many respects they seem more properly the territory of (take a deep breath) competition law.

Offensive commercial exploitation

What the consultation proposes is a new exclusion to be added to s 18:

…  for an invention the commercial exploitation which would be wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the Australian public.

Wholly offensive?

Apparently, the test of the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the Australian public is intended to ensure that the exclusion is “applied in a consistent, predictable and neutral manner”. However, it is also proposed to assist the Commissioner by explicitly empowering the Commissioner  in his or her discretion to seek “non-binding” advice on ethical matters.

What seems to trigger the exclusion commercial exploitation in an wholly offensive way rather than at the specific subject matter itself. At what point is the appropriateness of the commercial exploitation determined? Will it be enough that the invention could be exploited in an wholly offensive way? The BRCA controversy erupted when Myriad announced it was going to start charging licence fees for its products. Would the ordinary, reasonable and fully informed Australian have considered its patent wholly offensive before that announcement? This rather suggests that the problem falls within the second type issue identified by ACIP: about how the patent is used, are better dealt with through Crown Use and other compulsory licence arrangements.

 

If you have views you want to inflict, they should be submitted by 27 September 2013.

Find the issues paper here.

Patentable subject matter reform Read More »

Apple and that ITC ban

Leave a Comment / Enforcement, Patents / / / , , , , , ,

Well written piece in The New Yorker outlining the role of the US International Trade Commission in patent disputes and President Obama’s veto of the ITC’s order to block imports of “older” Apple products.

Mind you, make sure you are not eating your cornflakes over breakfast or sipping your decaf skinny latte when you get to the paragraph:

Samsung’s lawyers may take their talents to Seoul, Tokyo, London, or other venues in which home-court advantage is increasingly important ….

Prof. Wegner apparently saw it differently.

Lid dip: Miguel Belmar

Apple and that ITC ban Read More »

Patent trolls

Leave a Comment / Patents / / / , , , , , , , , ,

are in the news.

The This American Life podcast did a fascinating exposé on Intellectual Ventures, including that good old Current Affair/Today Tonight ambush attempt.

But seriously:

According to the website:

Two years ago, we did a program about a mysterious business in Texas that threatens companies with lawsuits for violating its patents. But the world of patent lawsuits is so secretive, there were basic questions we could not answer. Now we can. And we get a glimpse why people say our patent system may be discouraging, not encouraging, innovation.

There’s a fascinating visit (for those of us that don’t get to go there) to the Eastern District of Texas.

Even more interesting, despite the patent searcher’s report that there were more than 5,000 patents pending at the time the “poster patent” under investigation was filed, the invalidity argument that got up was the entitlement issue.

Wonder what would happen under our new rules if the true inventors came along to  join in with the patentee?

Download or listen from itunes or  the website

Lid dip: Andrew Woods

p.s. Patentology wonders if a patent “troll” lurks in a sunburnt country

Patent trolls Read More »

Another designs case

Leave a Comment / Designs, Patents / / / , , , , , , , , ,

Well, a patents and designs case, but really it’s a case about entitlement: Kenny J has upheld the validity of patents and registered designs for “beer taps” which one company in the Fosters group – Foster’s Group Ltd – applied for “most likely [by] mistake”[1] as one of its subsidiaries, Fosters Australia, was the owner.

Fosters Australia commissioned another party to design some new beer taps for it, on terms that it would own the resulting IP.

When the applicatins for the patents and designs were filed, however, they were filed in the name of Fosters Group Ltd, Fosters Australia’s parent and the holding company of the group.

When the mistake was discovered, Fosters Group assigned everything to Fosters Australia. By then, however, the designs had been registered in Fosters Group’s name, although innovation patent applications were still pending.

Fosters Australia has sued Cash’s for infringing its patents and designs. Cash’s defences asserted invalidity on the basis, amongst other things, that Fosters Group was not an entitled person or the grant was obtained by fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation.[2]

Kenny J rejected the attack on the patents on the basis that s 29 did not require an applicant for the patent to be the entitled person or someone claiming through him or her; it was necessary only that the patent was granted to someone who qualified under s 15. Kenny J further held that Fosters Group could assign the benefit of its applications to Fosters Australia.

Similar reasoning would apply to the designs s 21 and s 13, but the designs were already registered before Fosters Group assigned its rights to Fosters Australia. However, Kenny J found in circumstances that Fosters Group held the applications and registrations on constructive trust for Fosters Australia.

Patentology makes the point that, while all’s well that ends well, care needs to be taken in deciding who should make the application before it is filed.

Foster’s Australia Limited v Cash’s (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 527

  1. [2013] FCA 527 at [127].  ?
  2. Patents Act 1990 s 138(3) and Designs Act 2003 s 93(3).  ?

Another designs case Read More »

US Supreme Court invalidates isolated gene patent

Leave a Comment / Patents / /

but permits synthetic versions:

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad (2013)

Read more at Patently-O here and here

The appeal from Cancer Voices  in Australia is still pending.

US Supreme Court invalidates isolated gene patent Read More »

Compulsory Licensing of Patents – Productivity Commission

Leave a Comment / Antitrust, Patents / / / , , , ,

The Productivity Commission’s report on Compulsory Licensing of Patents has been published.

One key recommendation is to replace the compulsory licence provisions in the s 133 of the Patents Act with a compulsory licence regime in the Competition and Consumer Act:

The Australian Government should seek to remove s. 133(2)(b) from the Patents Act 1990 (Cwlth), so that a compulsory licence order based on restrictive trade practices of the patent holder is only available under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cwlth). The remedy provisions in the Competition and Consumer Act should be amended to explicitly recognise compulsory licence orders to exploit a patented invention as a remedy under the Act.

The Productivity Commission also recommends that the “reasonable requirements of the public” test in s 135 of the Patents Act be replaced with a “public interest” test:

The Australian Government should seek to amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cwlth) to replace the ‘reasonable requirements of the public’ test for a compulsory licence with a new public interest test. The new test should specify that a compulsory licence to exploit the patented invention would be available if the following conditions are met:

  • Australian demand for a product or service is not being met on reasonable terms, and access to the patented invention is essential for meeting this demand.
  • The applicant has tried for a reasonable period, but without success, to obtain access from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions.
  • There is a substantial public interest in providing access to the applicant, having regard to:
    • –  benefits to the community from meeting the relevant unmet demand
    • –  commercial costs and benefits to the patent holder and licensee from

      granting access to the patented invention

    • –  other impacts on community wellbeing, including those resulting from greater competition and from the overall effect on innovation.

Section 136 should be repealed and future Treaty obligations should be incorporated into the Patents Act directly.

The Productivity Commission would also like to see s 51(3) of the CC Act repealed:

but any changes to s.51(3) will need to be based on a consideration of the implications for all types of intellectual property, including those beyond this inquiry’s terms of reference.

Further recommendations relate to Crown Use,which appear to have been largely adopted already in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013.

Download Full Report, or interesting chapters, here.

Compulsory Licensing of Patents – Productivity Commission Read More »

Another IP amendment bill

Leave a Comment / IP generally, Patents, PBR / /

The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 was introduced into Parliament today.

The changes include:

  • amendments to the Crown use provisions in the Patents Act to ensure they apply where the relevant Commonwealth, State or Territory government has primary responsibility for funding or providing the service and to include a requirement for approval by the relevant Commonwealth, State or Territory Attorney-General
  • implementation of the TRIPS protocol to enable generics to apply to the Federal Court for a compulsory licence to manufacture a patented drug for export to developing countries experiencing a serious public health problem (or, as the EM puts it, a Health Crisis) to which the drug relates
  • conferring jurisdiction over plant varieties rights matters on the Federal Circuit Court (formerly the Federal Magistrates Court)
  • implementation of the Trans-Tasman patent attorney regime (whereby patent attorneys registered in Australia or NZ are entitled to practise in the other country as well)
  • so-called “technical amendments” to ensure that the amendments made by the “Raising the Bar” Act operate as intended.

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013

Explanatory Memorandum

IP Australia’s announcement

Another IP amendment bill Read More »

Oh won’t you stay …

Leave a Comment / Patents / / / , , , , , , , , ,

The patent war over escitalopram in Australia is still going!

One aspect of the Alphapharm / Lundbeck case I had forgotten (if I appreciated it at the time) was that Lindgren J quashed the extension of the patent’s term under s 70ff.

In June 2009, after the Full Court upheld Lindgren J’s decision, Lundbeck made a new application for an extension of term and also applied under s 223 for an extension of time to make that application – an extension of some 10 years or so.

In June 2011, the Commissioner granted Lundbeck’s application for an extension of time over oppositions by Alphapharm, Aspen and others. The AAT dismissed an appeal Aspen et al. and Aspen et al. have appealed from the AAT’s decision to the Full Court. That appeal is still pending.

Pending the outcome of the appeal, Yates J has now refused Aspen et al. a stay on the Commissioner’s decision to extend the term of the patent.[1]

Accepting that it was not ordinarily desirable that there be parallel proceedings before both the Commissioner and the Court, Yates J considered it was not appropriate to exercise his discretion to stay the proceedings before the Commissioner in this case.

While a number of considerations were advanced by both sides, the central consideration was that Lundbeck could well lose the ability to sue for some infringements if it was successful in extending the term of its patent. The issue here is that under s 120(4) proceedings for infringement must be brought within 6 years of the infringing conduct. Aspen et al. were not able to point to any real prejudice outweighing that.[2]

It may be of interest to note that the point in common between the 2 sets of proceedings is Aspen _et al._’s contention that the Commissioner has no power to grant the extension of term now under s 70(4) as she has already exercised the power (albeit invalidly) in granting the extension quashed by Lindgren J.[3]

Aspen Pharma Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] FCA 324

ps [4]

  1. The Commissioner must now decide whether an extension of term is in order and, if so, the extension of term will be advertised and Aspen _et al. have foreshadowed they intend opposing.  ?
  2. While the costs and disruption of unnecessary opposition proceedings were invoked, Yates J considered at [53] that such costs should not be substantial and, at [55], that they could “exert a real measure of restraint over the costs they will incur in the anticipated oppositions.”  ?
  3. See [40] – [43] of Yates J’s reasons.  ?
  4. I thought apologies were due to Jackson Browne, the soaring soprano and David Linley, but it seems Maurice Williams should also be in the picture.  ?

Oh won’t you stay … Read More »

Scroll to Top