Lower Cost Alternative to Challenging Australian Patents
In April 2013, the provisions available for challenging an Australian patent via requesting re-examination were significantly expanded. Notably, since April 2013 re-examination has provided a multi-prong and lower cost “first shot” alternative to seeking revocation of a patent through Federal Court proceedings.
Expanded Grounds for Attack
The expanded provisions provide that novelty, obviousness, subject matter, utility, and sufficiency type grounds may be pursued when requesting re-examination. Prior to April 2013, only the more limited grounds of novelty and obviousness were available. Importantly, the introduction of the additional grounds has substantially increased the potential lethality of a re-examination type attack.
The expanded provisions also mean that, in some circumstances, requesting re-examination as an initial step in challenging granted patents rights could avoid the substantial cost and timing uncertainty associated with revocation proceedings.
In the case of subject matter type grounds, re-examination may present a significant invalidation risk to patents in fields where patent eligibility requirements have shifted to the extent that developments in those fields (such as in the field of pure business methods) are currently considered as non-patentable subject matter. Similarly, the ability to invalidate a patent on utility grounds is significant since this ground was not available for consideration during examination of patent applications where a request for examination was made prior to April 2013.
What is Re-examination?
Re-examination involves requesting the Australian Patent Office to reconsider the claims of an Australian patent. A request for re-examination may be accompanied by prior art documents, and potentially submissions (including expert evidence), which the requestor considers relevant to the validity of the claims of the patent. The prior art and submissions are then considered by a patent examiner and result in the issue of a re-examination report.
If an adverse re-examination report is issued setting out objections to the validity of the patent, the onus is then placed on the patentee to address the objections raised. In some cases, a re-examination report may raise irresolvable issues which will inevitably lead to revocation of the patent. This may be the case, for example, for subject matter type issues. Alternatively, the re-examination report may raise issues which may necessitate a claim amendment.
Unlike a patent opposition to a patent application (which is conducted before the Patent Office) or a revocation procedure (which is conducted before the Federal Court of Australia), a re-examination procedure is conducted ex-partes, meaning that once a request for re-examination has been filed, the requestor has no further involvement in the procedure other than receiving a copy of the re-examination report.
The Balance of Probabilities
In addition to the expanded provisions available for re-examination, a further potential difficulty for patentees is that the standard of proof which applies during re-examination has changed. Whereas prior to April 2013 the Commissioner had the ability to revoke a patent in circumstances where the Commissioner was practically certain any granted patent was invalid, since April 2013 this ability has changed such that the Commissioner only now need be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a patent would be or is invalid.
New Zealand Position
Since September 2014, New Zealand has adopted a similar approach for re-examination of accepted patent applications or granted patents using a similar process to that available in Australia.
The expanded grounds and more stringent validity considerations which have applied to re-examination since April 2013 mean that re-examination now presents a useful and relatively inexpensive approach to launch an initial invalidity attack on an Australian Patent. In circumstances where the grounds for requesting re-examination involve a clear anticipation or subject matter type issue, re-examination could provide a lower cost, shorter time frame, option for revoking an Australian patent. In the event that a request for re-examination was unsuccessful, a revocation procedure would still be an available option via the Federal Court.
Stephen O’Brien is a Senior Associate in our ICT Team and a member of our Oppositions, Re-Examination and Revocation Group.
Read More ›
Australian patent law provides a relatively low-cost (pre-grant) procedure to oppose grant of a patent, on various grounds, by filing a Notice of Opposition within 3-months of the date of publication of acceptance. Once initiated, an opposition procedure is conducted before the Australian Patent Office.
Evidence is Pivotal
Importantly, Australia’s patent opposition procedure entails an evidentiary phase during which expert evidence is prepared and submitted by the opponent and the patent applicant. That evidence may comprise declarations by one or more experts setting out their opinions on, amongst other things, the disclosure of prior art references and the scope of the claims of the patent specification of the opposed application.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary phase, an inter-partes hearing is conducted leading to a decision on the outcome of the opposition. That decision depends, to a large extent, on the evidence filed prior to the hearing.
Timing for Filing Evidence
As a result of revised opposition requirements adopted in April 2013, the time periods for completing the different stages of the opposition procedure are more rigid and strictly enforced.
In particular, within 3-months of filing the Notice of Opposition, the opponent must submit their statement of case setting out the grounds and particulars on which the opposition is based. This statement, called the “Statement of Grounds and Particulars”, amongst other things, identifies relevant prior art documents and/or prior use activities intended to be relied upon, and particularises the relevance of those documents or use activities to the validity of the claims of the opposed application.
Within 3-months of filing the Statement of Grounds and Particulars, the opponent is then required to prepare and file “Evidence in Support” comprising their expert’s declaration(s) and supporting material. The applicant then has a period of 3-months, beginning after the “Evidence in Support” has been filed, to prepare and submit their “Evidence in Answer” responding to the “Evidence in Answer”.
As a final step prior to the hearing, the opponent is provided with a further 2-month period, beginning after the “Evidence in Answer” has been filed, to prepare and submit “Evidence in Reply” which responds to the “Evidence in Answer”.
Gathering and compiling expert evidence is a complicated activity requiring careful management of evidence preparation activities and planning to avoid steps which may otherwise jeopardise the opposition process. In some circumstances, despite the best efforts of the attorney responsible, such complications and considerations, when combined with limited availability of experts, can present challenges in finalising evidence within the required periods. In such cases, further time may be needed, but difficult to obtain via an extension of time.
Extensions of Time
Whereas prior to April 2013, extensions of time were available (and frequently relied upon), under the revised requirements extensions of time for completing the different stages of an opposition are not readily available, and may instead only (potentially) be available in particular circumstances. As a result, extensions of time to, for example, file Evidence in Support, have proven difficult to obtain. Despite the stricter enforcement of extension of time provisions, opponents and applicants are nevertheless continuing to apply for extensions of time to prepare and submit evidence, with varying degrees of success.
Public Interest Considerations
If evidence is not completed by the relevant date, and if an extension of time either has not been applied for or is refused, an additional opportunity to bring evidence into an opposition may be available via Regulation 5.23 of the Patent Regulations.
Regulation 5.23 was introduced as a part of the new patent procedural requirements in April 2013 and provides the ability for the Commissioner to retain a discretion to rely on documents that are not formally in evidence in order to protect the public interest. At the time of introduction of the new requirements, an Explanatory Statement  provided the following guidance as to extent of the discretionary type applicability of Regulation 5.23:
The Commissioner will be able to consider the document and then have the discretion to determine the most appropriate course of action in light of the information contained within the document. 
Regulation 5.23 may thus allow the Commissioner to consider “new” information even in circumstances where the information has been submitted outside the evidence periods.
In recent opposition decisions, the Australian Patent Office has interpreted the above statement and regulation 5.23 as requiring regard to the nature of the “new” information and whether the information is likely, if not certain, to change the outcome of the opposition in a significant way. If the new information is likely to so change the outcome of the opposition, then it appears that the Patent Office may allow such information to be filed outside of the evidentiary periods and considered during the opposition.
In the first Patent Office decision  to consider the application of Regulation 5.23, the required relevance of the information was considered in the context of an overlap between the applicability of that regulation and Australia’s re-examination provisions:
[i]t is in the public interest for highly significant information to be considered within an existing opposition and not wait for re-examination after the opposition is concluded. Less significant information should be allowed to wait until after the opposition has been concluded (considering that amendments resulting from the opposition may overcome the deficiency). 
In a series of decisions involving Innovia Security Pty Ltd as an opponent, the applicability of Regulation 5.23 has been further considered and applied to allow the opponent to submit new information, in the form of further evidence, outside the evidentiary phase.
In a first decision  involving Innovia Security Pty Ltd, the new information included a prior art document considered “… paramount to Innovia’s case on alleged anticipation, and from a preliminary assessment of its relevance it seems that reliance on document D1 may well change the outcome of the opposition in a significant way…”.  In this case, the discretion provided by regulation 5.23 was applied and the information considered.
In a subsequent and unrelated decision , involving the same opponent, the new information included a declaration intended to establish the publication date of a previously exhibited document which included information considered “significant, and indeed potentially pivotal, in the determination of the grounds of inventive step” . Once again the discretion was applied and the information considered.
In a third decision , also unrelated, the opponent relied on Regulation 5.23 again, this time to bring two new documents into opposition proceedings (prior to the hearing) which were considered “relevant to the grounds of novelty and inventive step” . Here again, the Commissioner applied her discretion under regulation 5.23 and allowed the information to be considered.
In each of the decisions involving Innovia Security Pty Ltd, none of the grounds for opposition were successful and thus it would seem that the new information considered under Regulation 5.23 did not change the outcome of the opposition.
Only Time Will Tell
Regulation 5.23 may provide an opportunity to have new evidence brought into an opposition in circumstances where the new evidence includes information which is more relevant to the grounds of novelty and inventive step than information previously exhibited, or substantiates facts associated with information already under consideration. Given the tightened extension of time provisions which apply to obtaining additional time to file evidence, it remains to be seen to what extent Regulation 5.23 will be relied upon as a de facto approach for obtaining an extension of time to file evidence.
Stephen O’Brien is a Senior Associate in our ICT team and a member of our Oppositions, Re-examination, and Revocation Group
 Explanatory Statement, Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 31, Issued by the Authority of the Minister for Industry and Innovation
 Ibid at page 21
 Merial Limited v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH  APO 16 (14 April 2015)
 Ibid, paragraph 22
 Innovia Security Pty Ltd v De La Rue International Limited  APO 31 (25 June 2015)
 Ibid at paragraph 25
 Innovia Security Pty Ltd v OVD Kinegram AG  APO 26 (17 June 2015)
 Ibid at paragraph 7
 Innovia Security Pty Ltd v OVD Kinegram AG  APO 46 (6 August 2015)
 Ibid at paragraph 2
Read More ›
As part of Madderns support of the Medical Device Partnering Program, Chris Wilkinson is providing an Intellectual Property (IP) 101 seminar series at Flinders University at Tonsley.
Please follow the links in the seminar titles to open pdf copies of the presentations.
First Seminar: Intellectual Property 101 – Types of IP protection, and Introduction to Patents
28th April 2015
In this talk Chris provided a brief review of the main types of IP protection available, what each type protects, and what are the basic requirements of each type. In particular Chris talked about what products and processes can typically be patented, what cannot, and what sits on the edge.
Second Seminar: Novelty, Obviousness and Publication Issues
26 May 2015
A core requirement of patents is that they are new and non obvious (ie inventive!). In this talk Chris explained how the patent system assesses novelty and obviousness, including how publications are assessed.
Third Seminar: Determining Inventors and Owners, and Working with a Patent Attorney
23 June 2015
Determining who is the inventor of a patent application has been described by one judge as “one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of the patent law”. In this talk Chris outlines how to determine who should be listed as an inventor on a patent, and how ownership is determined based on identifying the inventors. Chris also explained how listing inventors differs from assigning authors to paper. In the second half of the talk, Chris outlined how a patent application is prepared, and what information and input patent attorneys are looking for from inventors.
Fourth Seminar: Patent Searching, Infringement, and Freedom to Operate
21 July 2015
A core requirement of a patent is that it is novel and inventive compared to what was publically known at the date of filing (the prior art). With over 90 million patent documents in existence, it is often advisable to perform searches of patent databases to determine the likely patentability of your product or method prior to filing a patent application. In this seminar Chris discusses how to approach patent searching and discuss some free databases for performing patent searches. In addition to performing novelty or patentability searches, patent databases can be used to determine what patents are actually in force, and whether you might be infringing someone else’s patent. I will also discuss how infringement of a patent is determined and what exemptions exist to determine if you have freedom to operate. For example performing research on how a patented product or method works will typically fall under a research exemption, even if this research is performed in order to develop a competing product or method.
Fifth Seminar: The Patenting Process in Detail – Taking On The World
18 August 2015
The patent process is typically quite long and multinational. In this talk Chris will describe the overall patent process including options for filing overseas such as through the PCT system. Chris will also discuss the examination and granting process, and how this varies from country to country.
Sixth Seminar: The Different Types of Patents and Registered Designs
15 September 2015
There are many different and overlapping types of patents and applications such as provisional, basic, standard, utility, complete, convention, PCT, Innovation, and Utility Models. In this talk Chris will explain the terminology and the relationships between the different types to reduce the confusion generated by this wide range of terms. Chris will also discuss protection of Industrial Designs. Industrial Designs, also known as Registered Designs or Design Patents protect the visual appearance of products. Chris will discuss what protection is available for industrial designs, and the procedures for seeking protection for industrial designs both in Australia and overseas.
Seventh Seminar: Trade Marks and Trade Secrets
13 October 2015
Branding is the public face of many companies and is used to distinguish the company and its goods in the market place. In this seminar Chris will provide an overview of the trade mark system and how it can be used to protect a company’s brand. Chris will review the requirements and process for obtaining a registered trademark ® as well as related protection available under common law trade marks ™, passing off, and misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. Chris will also discus trade secrets and how they may be protected.
Read More ›
IAM Patent 1000 is an annual international survey of the patent profession undertaken by the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine. The survey involved a very extensive research process conducted by IAM over a five month period, including “in the region of 1,500 interviews” with lawyers, patent attorneys and in-house representatives of patentees and applicants. The guide that is produced by IAM at the conclusion of the survey “recommends those it considers to be leaders in the field: only those delivering top-quality patent services make the cut”.
With the listing of Madderns, the guide provided the commentary:
Patent and trademark attorney ensemble Madderns makes its debut in the IAM Patent 1000 this year. The seven-partner, 50-professional set is Southern Australia’s largest dedicated IP service provider and a growing force on the national and international stage too. It has traditionally concentrated its efforts on securing protection for electronic, computer, military, mining and industrial engineering innovations, but the development of a robust life sciences operation is a significant, ongoing storyline. Craig Vinall heads the practice with aplomb.
The full survey results are available at http://www.iam-media.com/Patent1000/Rankings/
Read More ›