ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Australia"

m (Protected "Australia": [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)))
m (External links: * http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au - Australia's patent office)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 +
* http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au - Australia's patent office
 
* [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____1461.aspx#P444_107121 Comments on Australian law from New Zealand researcher Joel Wiramu Pauling]
 
* [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____1461.aspx#P444_107121 Comments on Australian law from New Zealand researcher Joel Wiramu Pauling]
 
* [[AIPLA]]: [http://www.aipla.org/html/Patent-Handbook/countries/australia/AUsoftware.html A US organisation of patent lawyers] gives comments on patents in Australia
 
* [[AIPLA]]: [http://www.aipla.org/html/Patent-Handbook/countries/australia/AUsoftware.html A US organisation of patent lawyers] gives comments on patents in Australia

Revision as of 22:39, 26 August 2009

country-region-todo

In Australia, there are two types of patent. There's patents, and "innovation patents". The latter are minimally examined (which lead to someone getting a patent on the wheel[1]), but these are not the normal, main category of patents.

Legislation

(See Australian Patents Act 1990)

[1]

Patent office practice

The Australian patent office is: IPAustralia

According to IPAustralia, the criteria for eligibility include: "Your invention must ... be a 'manner of manufacture'. It includes any device, substance, method or process, but it excludes artistic creations, mathematical methods, plans, schemes or other purely mental processes;"

See also: Representative of IPAustralia describing the situation with software patents

Case law

In 1991, the patent commissioner rejected a software patent application on the grounds that it was mathematics. On December 13 1991, Federal Court judge Burchett disagreed and said this patent was indeed valid.[2]

"See Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120m July 17th 2006 where the Federal Court of Appeal refused a patent for a method of protecting assets from bankruptcy involving the setting up of a trust, a gift to the trust, and a loan back with the trustee taking a charge on the loan." - as mentioned in the UK 2006 ruling on Aerotel v. Telco.

External links

Possibly related links for review

References