Government consultation papers on patent and trade marks
Government consultation papers on patent and trade marks
Government consultation papers on patent and trade marks
The Australian government has issued 5 consultation papers on how to implement some of the recommendations it has accepted from the Productivity Commission’s Final Report into Intellectual Property Arrangements:
- amending the inventive step requirement (pdf)
- introducing an objects clause into the Patents Act 1990 (pdf)
- amending the Crown use provisions for patents and designs (pdf)
- amending the compulsory licensing provisions for patents (pdf)
- introducing divisional applications for international trade marks (and harmonising the arrangements for domestic trade marks with those arrangements) (pdf).
Submissions are required by 17 November 2017 (with a view to introducing a bill as soon as possible).
I can’t say that introducing yet another inventive step test (there are 4 if you count common general knowledge alone – depending on which regime applies to the patent in question) makes much sense.
Most of the Productivity Commission’s reasoning was based on the common general knowledge alone test used in Alphapharm.1 It did find, however, that there had not been much change in the Commissioner’s rate of granting patents relative to the EPO since the Raising the Bar act was passed. However, so far as I could see, it doesn’t tell us how many applications the Commissioner had examined under the Raising the Bar regime and you would have to guess a large number were still under the 2001 regime.2
Essentially, the Raising the Bar regime allows any piece of prior art to be combined with common general knowledge to test obviousness. It also allows prior art information to be combined in the same way as one might expect an English court or an EPO board would.3 The Raising the Bar regime should in fact operate just like the UK/EPC regime and one would have thought we should give it a good chance to work!
- See e.g. the reliance on Angiotech Pharmaceuticals v Conor Medsystems Inc. [2007 EWCA 5 at [43]. ??
- The Merial case is the only judicial consideration I am aware of applying the regime introduced in 2001 but, if you know of others, let me know. ??
- See e.g. KCI Licensing v Smith & Nephew [2010 EWCA Civ 1260 at 6. ??
Government consultation papers on patent and trade marks Read More »