With Australia’s innovation patent system set to end later this month, pre-grant opposition proceedings will likely play a significant role in the strategies of challengers going forward – and owners will want to be prepared. Gavin Adkins, Dr Toby Thompson and Amanda Stark discuss.
Australia’s innovation patent system is ending soon. As a result, Australia’s pre‑grant opposition proceedings will likely play a more significant role in the strategies of patentees and challengers in the future.
Innovation patents are subject to a different ‘post-grant’ opposition procedure to standard patents that is stayed by the commencement of court proceedings. As a result, divisional innovation patents are sometimes used as a litigation tool in order to, among other things, short circuit the enforcement delay associated with the pre‑grant opposition procedure for standard patents. As the innovation patent system is phased out, this tactic will fall away.
Australia’s pre-grant patent opposition procedure is long-standing but has undergone some important changes in recent years that will become critical in the future. These changes include higher requirements for several grounds of opposition, resulting in a less pro-patentee opposition regime than was previously the case.
Lower burden of proof
Previously, in order to succeed in opposing grant of an Australian patent it was necessary for an opponent to establish that the patent, if granted, would be clearly invalid.
Now an opponent need only satisfy the Hearing Officer on the balance of probabilities that a ground of opposition to the grant of the standard patent is made out.
Stronger grounds for opposition
In respect of standard patent applications which are filed on or after 15 April 2013, or for which examination is requested after this date, there are four substantive changes that strengthen the grounds for challenging validity:
1. Broader prior art base for inventive step (obviousness)
Firstly, the background “common general knowledge” is no longer confined to that which existed in the art in Australia. In practice, this removes the need to use local Australian experts or otherwise prepare evidence in order to establish that the relevant art is ‘international’ in nature.
Secondly, in order for prior art to be eligible for assessing inventive step it is no longer necessary to establish that it must be “information that a skilled person […] could, before the priority date of the relevant claim, be reasonably expected to have ascertained, understood, regarded as relevant”. This removes another evidentiary obligation from an opponent and broadens the prior art base substantially.
2. US utility requirement
An express utility requirement was inserted to align with the US position such that “a specific, substantial and credible use for the invention (so far as claimed) is disclosed in the complete specification”. This is in addition to the pre-existing requirement for the invention itself to be useful.
3. UK/European enablement and support requirements
The disclosure requirement for complete applications has been amended to conform substantially to the corresponding UK provision, such that the complete specification must “disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for an invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art”.
Further, the ‘old test’ for fair basis has been replaced with a requirement based on UK/European law that that the claims are “supported by” the description. The ‘old test’ for fair basis was essentially limited to a textual comparison between the claims and the body of the specification or priority document that did not involve any inquiry into ‘technical contribution to the art’.
4. Tighter restrictions on amendments
While not a ground for invalidity, patent applicants are not allowed to add matter that goes beyond the disclosure contained in the specification at its filing date, except to correct a clerical error or obvious mistake.
Strict time-frames for evidence
In the past, patent opposition proceedings in Australia often became protracted due to generous provisions relating to extensions of time for lodging evidence. This is no longer the case.
Evidentiary time periods are still extendable, but the regulations relating to extensions of time for evidentiary periods are now reasonably onerous and strictly applied by IP Australia. Unless a party can show that they acted promptly and diligently and made all reasonable efforts to file the evidence in time, an extension will not be granted.
The procedure from filing the Notice of Opposition to the issuance of a written decision on validity can now be completed within about 18 months, although extensions of time (where allowed), amendments and procedural disputes can extend this time-frame.
Use all available options
It is currently still possible to file new applications for innovation patents in Australia, until 25 August 2021. Even after that date, it will still be possible to file applications for innovations which are divisionals of existing applications filed before that date. As a result, if your invention is of significant commercial value and is likely to be commercialised in the short to medium term, an 8-year term innovation patent may still be a useful option.
How we can help
Facing a pre-grant opposition in Australian is often a new experience for many patent owners, and opponents also. Opposition practice is a specialised area of Australian patent law, particularly with regard to areas such as preparation of expert evidence, hearing preparation, dealing with procedural aspects such as amendment requests and extensions, and extending into commercial aspects such as settlement negotiations and licensing.
Griffith Hack’s experts have extensive experience in handling Australian patent oppositions. Our combined patent attorney and legal team provides integrated scientific and legal expertise, together with strategic, commercially-relevant insight, and has a proven track record in delivering results.
To discuss patent oppositions further with a member of our team, click on their profiles below.
