Footnotes

Report - Patents Amendment Bill 2001

[1]           Patents Amendment Bill 2001, Second Reading Speech, The Hon. Warren Entsch MP, p.1.

[2]           Patents Amendment Bill 2001, Second Reading Speech, The Hon. Warren Entsch MP, p.1.

[3]           Bills Digest No. 1 2001-02, p.5.

[4]           Bills Digest No. 1 2001-02, p.5.

[5]           Patents Amendment Bill 2001, Second Reading Speech, The Hon. Warren Entsch MP, p.2.

[6]           Submission No. 4, p.1.

[7]           Submission No. 3, p.5.

[8]           Submission No. 1.

[9]           Submission No. 2.

[10]         Submission No. 2, p.2.

[11]         Submission No. 2, p.2.

[12]         Submission No. 3, p.8.

[13]         Submission No. 3, p.8.

[14]         Submission No. 3, pp.8-9. The Australian Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys also notes that different countries have different rules concerning the concept of ‘common general knowledge’ and that the Bill makes no clear provision in this connection. Submission No. 1, p.3.

[15]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.6. Italics added.

[16]         The judgement states: ‘There may be some fields of endeavour in which those who work therein study and make themselves familiar with all patent specifications as they become available for inspection in one or in many countries so that what was contained therein becomes common general knowledge in that particular trade or field of manufacture in the country in question’. Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.6.

[17]         Section 7(2).

[18]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.7.

[19]         Item 4, Subsection 7(3).

[20]         Submission No. 3, p.9.

[21]         Submission No. 2, p.3; see also, Submission No. 3, p.9.

[22]         Submission No. 3, p.6.

[23]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.8.

[24]         Item 14, Subsection 45(3).

[25]         Submission No. 2, p.4.

[26]         Submission No. 4, p.1.

[27]         Submission No. 4, p.2.

[28]         Submission No. 6A, p.4.

[29]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.4.

[30]         Submission No. 3, p.11.

[31]         Submission No. 2, p.4; Submission No. 3, p.11.

[32]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.3.

[33]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.3.

[34]         The Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Act 2000 ushered in the new innovation patents system, which superseded the petty patents system as a ‘form of second tier intellectual property protection for minor or incremental innovations’. See Bills Digest No.1 2001-2002, p.2.

[35]         The lower inventive threshold requires an ‘innovative step’ rather than the inventive step required of standard patents.

[36]         Submission No. 6, p.3.

[37]         Law Council of Australia, Submission No. 2, p.3.

[38]         Cited in Submission No. 2, p.3.

[39]         Submission No. 2, p.3.

[40]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.11.

[41]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.12.

[42]         Subsection 24(1) of the Act and regulation 2.2 of the Regulations outline the circumstances where public disclosure of an invention does not invalidate a later patent application. These limited circumstances are the exception to the general rule that ‘an invention is not patentable if it has been publicly disclosed before the priority date of the patent’. See IP Australia, Submission No. 6, p.8.

[43]         IP Australia, Submission No. 6, p.8.

[44]         See Item 23 of the Bill. See also Bills Digest No.1 2001-2002, p.10.

[45]         Submission No. 2, p.5, italics added.

[46]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.12.

[47]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.13.

[48]         See Bills Digest No.1 2001-2002, p.13.

[49]         Law Council, Submission No. 2, p.5; IPTA Submission No. 3, pp.12-13.

[50]         Bills Digest No.1 2001-2002, p.12.

[51]         Review of Intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement, Final Report of the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, September 2000, pp.160-161.

[52]         Submission No. 2, p.5.

[53]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.15.

[54]         Submission No. 6, pp.10-13.

[55]         Submission No. 6, p.11.

[56]         Submission No. 2, p.5.

[57]         Bills Digest No.1 2001-2002, p.13.

[58]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, p.14.

[59]         Submission No. 5, p.1.

[60]         Supplementary Submission No. 6, pp.16-17.

[61]           Bills Digest No. 1 2001-02. P5.

[62]           See for example Committee Submission 1 - Australian Federation of Australian Intellectual Property Lawyers.

[63]           Committee Submission 2 – Australian Law Council, p5. and Committee Submission 3 – Institute of Patent Attorneys (Australia), pp12-13.

[64]           See Bills Digest No. 1 2001-02, p12.

[65]           Backing Australia’s Ability Innovation Action Plan – January 2001

[66]           Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys (IPTA), Submission No. 3, p. 5. See also FICPI, Submission No. 1, p. 3

[67]           Law Council of Australia (LCA), Submission No. 2, p.2, IPTA, Submission No. 3, p. 8

[68]           Review Of The Intellectual Property Legislation Under The Competition Principles Agreement, Final Report By The Intellectual Property And Competition Review Committee, September 2000, p. 156

[69]           LCA, Submission No. 2, p. 3, IPTA, Submission No. 3, p. 9

[70]           IPTA, Submission No. 3, p. 6

[71]           Australian Academy of Science, Submission No. 4, p. 1

[72]           LCA, Submission No. 2, p. 4

[73]           Dr Ferguson, Submission No. 5, p. 1

[74]           IP Australia, Supplementary Submission No. 6, pp. 16-17

[75]         IPTA, Submission No. 3, p. 3