Sectors

Resources

Jurisdictions

Bookmark and Share

What Does “Local Novelty” Really Mean?

Issued: September 01 2010
New Zealand is one of the few developed countries that retains a “local novelty” provision in its patents legislation. When assessing the patentability of an application, local novelty disregards any publication or use outside that particular jurisdiction.

This, in theory, allows patent applicants to file in New Zealand after overseas publication, use, sale, or even the expiry of the 12-month Paris Convention period.

Although the New Zealand Patents Act 1953 is soon to be replaced – and although the Patents Bill 2008 proposes a shift to “absolute novelty” to conform with most of the rest of the world – it is worth considering what difference this shift is likely to make in “real” terms.

Local novelty is such an antiquated notion that most countries dispensed with it long ago. Indeed, the Patents Act 1953 is based upon the UK’s Patents Act 1949, in which days, to import a new technology, one literally had to jump on a ship, sail the seven seas and then offload it.

Local novelty “worked” in such an age because it provided an incentive to bring technology, be it new or known, to a developing country such as New Zealand was at the time.

Nowadays, developments in telecommunications, and to a lesser extent planes, trains and automobiles render local novelty largely conceptual and somewhat difficult to achieve in practice.

To all intents and purposes, local novelty’s death knell was the dawn of the internet age; such a notion is largely untenable where a new technology can be transmitted across the globe in milliseconds. Establishing the accession date of internet-based material without adducing evidence is often impossible.

Whether a website accessible through the internet constitutes “local publication” until such time as it exists physically (i.e., it is printed in New Zealand) was addressed in Molecular Plant Breeding’s Application [IPONZ decision P25/2005].

In this decision, the Assistant Commissioner accepted for the first time that a document available via the internet met the statutory definition of “published.” While this has not been contested formally, this finding has nonetheless been widely assumed in the interim.

Accordingly, “local novelty by publication” is now largely extinct under New Zealand practice. This leaves only “local novelty by use,” which is rather limited, even to the point of irrelevance. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, New Zealand patent law already appears to operate on a de facto “absolute novelty” basis.

Popular opinion is that the new Patents Act will “raise the bar” on New Zealand patents, making them harder to obtain, more limited in scope and thereby less commercially viable.

However, the way the Patents Bill is drafted, Examination will be extended to include an assessment of inventive step, with a patent allowed according to the “balance of probabilities.”

In reality therefore, it is unlikely that many applications will be excluded during Examination on the basis of inventive step alone.

Moreover, inventive step has always been a ground for Opposition and Revocation, meaning that, if anything, the balance of probabilities is likely to be skewed in favour of the Applicant. Other proposed changes merely codify the present judicial exclusions for certain subject matter.

With the above points in mind, we would temper any impression that a New Zealand patent will become significantly harder to obtain under the new legislation.

Local novelty exists in name only and as the “main” criterion for patentability; we do not believe that the scope of New Zealand patents granted under the proposed new Act will be significantly less than those granted under the present legislation. New Zealand patents will continue to provide excellent value for money, with the new legislation serving to increase certainty, both for the patentee and for its competitors.

Shelston IP
60 Margaret St.,
Sydney NSW 2000,
Australia
T: +61 2 9777 1111
F: +61 2 9241 4666
E: charlestansey@shelstonip.com
garethdixon@shelstonip.com
W: www.shelstonip.com

About the Author

Charles Tansey is a partner of Shelston IP and a registered patent attorney in Australia and New Zealand. Tansey practises in the patents area: drafting, prosecuting and handling opposition proceedings. He holds BSc (Hons) and PhD degrees in organic chemistry from the University of Sydney and has spent a number of years as a research scientist. He is a member of the Asian Patent Attorneys Association and is a member of the Emerging IP Rights standing committee.
 
Gareth Dixon is an associate of Shelston IP and practises in the areas of chemical, pharmaceutical
and materials-related technologies. Dixon has a PhD and several publications in the field of synthetic organic chemistry. He is registered as a patent attorney in Australia and New Zealand, and is also foundation-level qualified in the UK. Dixon was recently awarded the 2010 IPSANZ prize for a paper on the merits of combining the Australian and New Zealand patent systems. This story has also appeared on the Shelston IP website, www.shelstonip.com/news_story.asp?m=8&y=2010&nsid=154.
Tag:  Paris Convention  New Zealand Patents Act 1953  Patents Bill 2008  UK’s Patents Act 1949  Shelston IP

 

Related Articles

 

Law Firms

 

New Zealand

My Account

Name:
Password:  
   
    Forgot password?
   
Remember me

Most Read Articles

Magazine Issues

archive

Tags