Upload
scholarsassist
View
33
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PROTECTION FOR MINOR INVENTIONS- A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE
MALAYSIAN SYSTEM AND THE SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA (INNOVATION
PATENTS)
Written By Ahmad Rawi
The Writer can be contacted at
1. DEFINITION AND SUBJECT MATTER PROTECTED
Apart from patent proper, most Intellectual Property Protection regimes in the world also accord
a lesser type of patent protection which equivocally known as petty patent, utility innovation,
utility model, innovation patent or second tier patent protection. This paper will limit the
comparative discussion of this lesser type of patent protection to the models adopted by the
intellectual property protection regimes in Malaysia and Australia.
In Malaysia, this type of lesser patent is named (certificate of) utility innovation and is provided
for by Section 17 to Section 17C of Part IVA of the Malaysian Patents Act 1983 (Act 291) and
the Second Schedule to the same (in the following discussion, original sections referred to in the
Malaysian Patents Act 1983 (Act 291), when they apply to utility innovation, should be
construed as being modified to the relevant extent by the Second Schedule and should be read
accordingly).
As the Malaysian Act provides that the provisions of the Act, as modified by the Second
Schedule to the Act, apply to utility innovations in the same manner as they apply to inventions,
it follows that non-patentable items enumerated by Section 13 are also ineligible for protection
1
accorded by certificate of utility innovation. Section 13 (as modified by the Second Schedule)
provides four categories of items which are ineligible for certificate of utility innovation
notwithstanding that they may be ‘inventions’ within the meaning of Section 12 namely
discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; plant or animal varieties or essentially
biological processes for the production of plants or animals with the exclusion of man-made
living micro-organism, micro-biological processes and the products of such micro-organism
processes;schemes,rules or methods for doing business, performing purely mental acts or playing
games and lastly the methods for the treatment of human or animal body by surgery or therapy
and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body but does not include products
used in any such methods. The section also provides that in the event of uncertainty, the
Registrar shall have the final word on whether an item in question is eligible or not for the
protection of certificate of utility innovation.
In Australia, the new second-tier patent protection is known by the name innovation patent and is
a revamp of the old pre-2001 second-tier patent protection system known as petty patent. The
provision governing innovation patent was incorporated into the Australian Patents Act 1990
(Act No. 83 of 1990) by The Patents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Act 2000 (Act No. 140 of
2000) which came into operation on 24 May 2001. The salient features of the Australian
innovation patent will be comparatively discussed below with the Malaysian utility innovation
system.
2. PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING PROTECTION
2.1 Procedure for obtaining certificate of utility innovation in Malaysia
2
2.1.1 An applicant applying to obtain the protection for his utility innovation in
Malaysia shall make his application to the Registrar of Patents in Form 14 of the
Malaysian Patents Act 1983 together with the payment of the prescribed fee
(RM100). Effectively, this means filing the said Form 14 at the registry of any of the
Malaysian Intellectual Property Office (MyIPO) offices in Kuala Lumpur,Kota Kinabalu
or Kuching).
2.1.2 The Registrar shall then record as the filing date (which shall be the priority date for the
application), the date on which the application is received by the Registry1.The
recording of the filing date is however subject to the application fulfilling all the required
details namely the applicant’s name, the inventor’s name and address, a description of the
utility innovation for which the certificate is applied for, a claim or claims and payment
of the prescribed fee2 and where the application refers to drawing or drawings, such
drawing or drawings must be included in the application3.
2.1.3 The Registrar, however, will not issue a filing date for the application in the event that
such required details and drawings are either incomplete or missing, and instead the
Registrar will request the applicant to file the required correction or to furnish the
missing drawings or both, as the case may be. In such an event, the Registrar will only
record as the filing date, the date on which the required correction or the missing
drawings is received by the Registry4.The required correction to the details in the
1 Section 28, Malaysian Patents Act 1983
2 Section 28(1), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
3 Section 28(4), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
4 Sections 28(3) & 28(5), Malaysian Patents Act 19833
application or the missing drawing must be filed with or furnished to the Registry
within three months from the date of the Registrar’s request5. Effects of non-compliance
to the Registrar’s request differ in that failure to file in the requested correction will
result in the rejection of the application (i.e. the application is treated as invalid)6
whereas failure to furnish the missing drawing will not. Instead, in case of the latter, the
Registrar will record the date of receipt of the application as the filing date and simply
will not make any reference to the said drawings7. Where the application is treated
as invalid by the Registrar, the Registrar will furnish in writing the reasons behind the
invalidation to the applicant8.
2.1.4 Once the application has been accorded a filing date, a certificate of filing in the form of
a copy of the filed Form 14 with the filing date and application number marked
thereon9.After the expiry of eighteen months from the filing date, the details of the
application will be made available for public inspection10.
2.1.5 Where the filing date has been accorded to the application and the application has not
been withdrawn, the Registrar will then conduct a preliminary examination (also called
‘Formalities Examination’) to determine whether the application complies with the
5 Regulations 25(2) & 25(4), Malaysian Patents Regulations 1986
6 Section 28(3), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
7 Section 28(5), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
8 Section 28(4), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
9 Regulation 25, Malaysian Patents Regulations 1986
10 Section 34(1), Malaysian Patents Act 19834
requirements related to formalities as provided for under the Act11. Where the
Registrar finds that the application does not comply with the formal requirements, the
Registrar shall notify the applicant and request him to amend the application so as to
bring it to compliance with the formal requirements and the applicant shall accordingly
amend the application within 3 (three) months from date of the Registrar’s notification12
failing which the application may be refused by the Registrar13.
2.1.6 Where all the formalities have been complied with, the Registrar will send a clear
Formalities Report to the applicant. The applicant then must request for a substantive
examination of the application14 by filing a request in Form 5 of the Malaysian Patents
Act 1983 together with the payment of the prescribed fee (RM700) within two years from
the filing date of the application15failing which the application for certificate of utility
innovation will be deemed to be withdrawn at the end of the two years period16.The
applicant may, however, request to the Registrar for a deferment of the filing of the
request for the substantive examination17 by filing in Form 5B together with the
prescribed fee provided that such request is made before the expiry of two years from the
11 Section 29(1), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
12 Regulation 26(2), Malaysian Patents Regulations 1986
13 Section 29(2), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
14 Section 29A, Malaysian Patents Act 1983
15 Regulation 27, Malaysian Patents Regulations 1986
16 Section 29(5), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
17 Section 29(6), Malaysian Patents Act 19835
filing date18 and in any case, where deferment is granted, it should not be
longer than five years from the filing date of the application19.
2.1.7 Where a request for substantive examination has been filed, The Registrar shall refer the
application to an examiner who will examine whether the application complies with the
substantive requirements as designated by the Malaysian Patents Act 1983 and the
regulations made thereunder and reports his findings to the Registrar20. The requirement
of ‘Inventive Step’ is disregarded in determining whether the application complies with
the substantive requirements of the Patents Act, 198321.
2.1.8 In the event of finding of non-compliance by the examiner, the Registrar will send a copy
of the examiner’s report (called ‘Adverse Report’) to the applicant and the applicant must
response or make amendment to the application within three months from the date of
mailing of the report22 .Where the applicant fails to amend the application so as to bring it
into conformity with the substantive requirements of the Act, the Registrar may refuse the
application.
2.1.9 Where the application, whether as originally filed or as amended, complies with the
substantive requirements of the Act, the applicant will be notified by the Registrar and
the application will be processed accordingly23 i.e. proceed to grant of certificate of
18 Section 29(7), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
19 Regulations 27B(2)(a) & (b), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
20 Section 30(1)(a) & (b), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
21 Section 17A(2), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
22 Regulation 27C,Malaysian Patents Regulations 1986
23 Section 30(5), Malaysian Patents Act 19836
utility innovation whereby the Registrar will issue to the applicant a certificate of utility
innovation and record the same in the Register24.
2.2 Procedure for obtaining innovation patent in Australia
2.2.1 A person wishing to obtain innovation patent for his invention may apply for the same by
filing in a patent request and such other documents as are prescribed by the Australian
Patents Act 1990 and regulations thereunder25. This paper will only limit the discussion
to application for a complete innovation patent, the other type being provisional
application.
In effect, this means lodging the patent request forms (consist of two forms) for
innovation patent and the complete specification of the invention together with the
prescribed fee (AUD 150 if lodged online and AUD 180 if by other means)26 with IP
Australia (the Australian Intellectual Property Office) Canberra Central Office or with
the General Post Offices in Hobart, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin which
have been designated as IP Lodgement Points by IP Australia (either by post or in
person)27.Application can also be made online.
24 Section 31(2), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
25 Section 29, Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act No. 83 of 1990)
26 Patent Fees.IP Australia, 2010 available at
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/fees_index.shtml#innovation (accessed on 13 August 2010)
27 Resources.IP Australia, 2010 available at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/resources/contacts.shtml (accessed on 13 August 2010)
7
2.2.2 After the complete application for innovation patent has been filed, the patent office will
conduct a formalities check in respect of the application28. If satisfied that the application
passes the formalities check, the patent office must accept the patent request and the
accompanying complete specification29.
2.2.3 Following acceptance, the innovation patent will be granted for the invention30. In most
of the cases, innovation patent will be granted within one month from the date of
filing.
3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MALAYSIAN UTILITY INNOVATION AND
AUSTRALIAN INNOVATION PATENT (INCLUDING DIFFERENCES IN
CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION)
3.1 The Malaysian Patent System of Dual Pre-Grant Examination As Opposed To The
Absence of Pre-Grant Substantive Examination in the Australian System
Under the Malaysia system, an application for utility innovation is required to undergo
both the formalities examination and the substantive examination prior to grant. In this
regard, from the aspect of application clearance process, the Malaysian utility innovation
system does not provide any significant advantage over its standard (proper) patent’s
application clearance process in that both types of application are subjected to the same
dual pre-grant examination.
28 Section 52(1), Australian Patents Act 1990
29 Section 52(2),Australian Patents Act 1990
30 Section 62,Australian Patents Act 19908
In order to be granted an innovation patent under the Australian system, the application
will only undergo a pre-grant formalities examination. Regulation 3.2B of the Australian
Patents Regulations 1991 (Statutory Rules 1991 No. 71 as amended) [as at 1 August
2010] provides that a complete application for an innovation patent will only pass the
formalities examination if the application is in compliance with the requirements laid
down by Regulation 3.2B (1)(a) to (h) which, among others, provided that, the patent
request and patent specification must be in English and in the approved forms, the
application subject matter does not come within the categories of unpatentable subject
matter as laid down by Section 18(2) and (3) of the Australian Act.
3.2 Differences In Criteria For Protection (Malaysian Patent System Position Of
Abolishing The Requirement Of Inventive Step Altogether With Regard To Utility
Innovation As Opposed To Lowering the Threshold Of Inventive Step To That Of
Innovative Step In The Australian System)
Under the Malaysian patent system, utility innovation (which is eligible for protection) is
defined as any innovation which create a new product or process, or any new
improvement of a known product or process, which is capable of industrial application
and includes an invention as defined by Section 12 of the Malaysian Patents Act 1983.
Explaining the requirement of Section 17 in its practical application, the guidelines for
patent examination issued by the Malaysian Intellectual Property Corporation stated that
Section 17 do away with the inventive step requirement of a patent application and
instead maintain the novelty requirement of a utility innovation i.e. in order for an
9
innovation to be eligible for certificate of utility innovation, there must exist a novelty of
technical nature in that innovation which provides the solution to a specific problem in
the field of technology. The exclusion of inventive step in considering eligibility of an
invention for certificate of utility innovation is expressly provided for
by Section 17A (2).
The Australian patent regime has taken a different approach. Section 18(1) (b) (ii) of the
Australian Patents Act 1990 laid down the requirement of inventive step as one of the
prerequisites of patentability (in the sense of standard patent or patent proper) of an
invention. In relation to innovation patent, the relevant standard has been lowered in that
Section 18(1A)(b)(ii) of the Australian Act laid down that for an invention to be eligible
for innovation patent, such an invention, when compared against the relevant prior art,
must involve an innovative step. Section 7(4) of the Australian Act provides that an
invention is said to involve an innovative step, if when compared to the background prior
art in the patent area before the priority date of the relevant claim, such an invention
would appear, to a person skilled in the relevant art of the invention, to vary substantially
from such background prior art in ways that make the invention workable.
The Federal Court of Australia (New South Wales District Registry) had considered the
proper construction of Section 7(4) of the Act in the case of Delnorth Pty. Ltd. vs. Dura-
Post (Aust) Pty. Ltd. [2008] FCA 122531 where Gyles J. (at para. 52) stated that :
“The first step is to compare the invention as claimed in each claim with the prior art base
and determine the difference or differences. The next step is to look at those differences
31 Available online from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2008/1225.html10
through the eyes of a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of common general
knowledge as it existed in Australia before the priority date of the relevant claim and ask
whether the invention as claimed only varies from the kinds of information set out in
s 7(5) in ways that make no substantial contribution to the working of the invention. It
may be that there is a feature of each claim which differs from the prior art base and that
could be described as the main difference in each case but that need not be so.
Section 7(4), in effect, deems a difference between the invention as claimed and the prior
art base as an innovative step unless the conclusion which is set out can be reached. If
there is no difference between the claimed invention and the prior art base then, of
course, the claimed invention is not novel”
Gyles J. decision has been upheld by the three bench corum of the Federal Court in Dura-
Post (Aust) Pty Ltd v Delnorth Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 81.
3.3 Post-Grant Substantive Examination and Certification
Under the Australian system, after the grant of innovation patent, the patent office may
proceed, either on its own initiative or upon written request from the grantee or any other
person, to examine the complete specification relating to the innovation patent (i.e.
substantive examination)32.
If after examining the innovation patent, either on its own initiative or upon the said
written request, the patent office decides that the innovation patent complies with the
requirement of the Australian Patents Act 1990 and regulations made thereunder, the
patent office must notify the person requesting the examination (either the patentee 32 Section 101A, Australian Patents Act 1990
11
himself or a third party) that the innovation patent has been examined and that a
certificate of examination is to be issued. The patent office must also publish a notice
that the examination has taken place in the Australian Official Journal of Patents, issue a
certificate of examination and register the issue of the certificate33.If however, after
examining the patent, the patent office decides that there is ground for the revocation of
the patent and the ground has not been removed even after the patentee has
been given the opportunity to be heard and amend the relevant specification that is the
ground for revocation, then the patent office must revoke the patent, inform the
patentee or the relevant third party and register the revocation34.
The Australian system of post-grant substantive examination effectively provides an
interested third party with the opportunity to have the innovation patent revoked by the
patent office.
Under the Malaysian system however, where post-grant substantive examination is not
provided for, a third party wishing to invalidate a patent may institute court proceedings
against the owner of the certificate of utility innovation for the invalidation of the
patent35.
3.4 Exclusive Rights Granted and Enforcement of Rights
Under the Malaysian system, the exclusive rights granted to the holder of utility
innovation in relation to the utility innovation are the same as that granted to the holder of
33 Section 101E, Australian Patents Act 1990
34 Section 101F, Australian Patents Act 1990
35 Section 56, Malaysian Patents Act 198312
a standard patent in relation to the patent namely to exploit the invention covered by the
utility innovation, to assign or transmit the utility innovation and to conclude licence
contracts36. An owner of a utility innovation has the right to institute court
proceedings against any person who has infringed, is infringing37 or is preparing to
infringe the utility innovation38.
The Malaysian system also provides pre-grant safeguard to the applicant of the utility
innovation in that after the details of a utility innovation application are being made
available for public inspection, the applicant is allowed to give a written warning to a
person who has commercially or industrially worked the invention which is the subject
matter of the utility innovation application that a utility innovation application for the
invention has been filed39.
The applicant is actually given a ‘double treat’ in that the Malaysian Patents Act provides
the successful applicant the post-grant concurrent rights of recouping his pre-grant and
post-grant economic loss brought about by unauthorised working of the invention by the
person warned above.
Firstly, the Malaysian Patents Act allows the applicant, after the grant of certificate of
utility innovation, to demand compensation from such a person (for economic loss) from
the time the person is given such a written warning40 or (where no written warning is
36 Section 36, Malaysian Patents Act 1983
37 Section 59(1), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
38 Section 59(2), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
39 Section 34(5), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
40 Section 34(6)(a), Malaysian Patents Act 198313
given) from the time the details of the utility innovation is made publicly available41 up
to the time the certificate of utility innovation is granted. The quantum of such
compensation is to correspond to an amount equivalent to what the applicant would have
normally received had he worked the invention himself up to the time of the grant of the
said utility innovation.
Secondly, after the grant of the utility innovation, the applicant (now the owner of the
utility innovation) is also allowed to exercise all the rights available to him as the utility
innovation’s owner against such a person.
This is not the case under the Australian system where an applicant has no right to
threaten a third party with infringement proceedings before his application for innovation
patent is granted or even after his application has been granted so long as the granted
innovation patent is not certified by the patent office42. Where such a threat is made, the
threat is regarded as unjustifiable and the person threatened may apply to the court for a
declaration that such threat is unjustifiable. Such threatened person may also apply an
injunction to stop the threat and also the recovery of damages sustained as a result of the
threat43.In those case (i.e. threat made pre-grant or post-grant prior to certification), the
court may grant the relief applied for by the threatened person44.
41 Section 34(6)(b), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
42 Section 129A, Australian Patents Act 1990
43 Section 128, Australian Patents Act 1990
44 Section 129A(2), Australian Patents Act 199014
As such, under the Australian system, in order to enforce his rights (through infringement
proceedings), the Australian innovation patent owner must have his innovation patent
certified by the patent office first45.
3.5 Public Inspection of Patent Documents
Under the Malaysian system, after the expiry of eighteen month from the priority date or
the filing date of a utility innovation application the details of the patent application shall
be available for public inspection upon payment of the prescribed fee46. Any person
wishing to inspect the details of the utility innovation before the lapse of the
eighteen months period may do so only with the written permission of the applicant
for the utility innovation concerned47.
Under the Australian system, public inspection of the innovation patent documents will
only be available after the grant of the innovation patent to the invention48.
3.6 Number of Claims Allowed
Under the Malaysian system, the unity of invention requirement applicable to patent is
specifically excluded with regard to utility innovation by Section 17A (2) and Regulation
45(3) of the Malaysian Patents Regulations 1986. This exclusion means that only a single
claim is allowed in an application for certificate of utility innovation49.
45 Section 120(1A), Australian Patents Act 1990
46 Section 34(1),Malaysian Patents Act 1983
47 Section 34(3), Malaysian Patents Act 1983
48 Section 62(2)(b), Australian Patents Act 199015
Under the Australian system, an application for innovation patent may contain up to a
maximum of five (5) claims defining the invention50.
3.7 Duration of Patent
The Malaysian system gives a maximum of twenty (20) years protection for utility
innovation commencing from the filing date of the application for the utility innovation.
The owner of a certificate of utility innovation may apply to the patent office to have the
initial protection duration of ten (10) years be extended for another five (5) years and
thereafter for another final five (5) years51.
Under the Australian system, the period of protection of an innovation patent is eight (8)
years from the date of the patent with no provision for extension52.
4. CONCLUSION (COMMENTS AND SUGGESTION)
The second-tier patent system, known by equivocal names in different jurisdictions, is brought
into existence to offer a quick, cheap and independent of substantive examination protection
mechanism for technical inventions which would not ordinarily qualify for protection under the
standard patent regime53.
49 Item 2.2,Chapter VII (Utility Innovation) in The Guidelines For Patent Examination In The Intellectual Property Corporation Of Malaysia.Malaysian Intellectual Property Corporation (2004) p. 49.
50 Section 40(2)(c), Australian Patents Act 1990
51 Sections 35(1) and 35(2) read with Second Schedule of the Malaysian Patents Act 1983
52 Section 68, Australian Patents Act 1990
53 Suthersanen,U., Dutfield, G. and Kit, B.C. (2007), “Invention without patent : Harnessing the creative spirit in a diverse world”.Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd,UK at pg. 18
16
In Australia, the trade off of these less stringent requirements are the shorter duration of
protection without possibility of extension i.e. eight (8) years single term and a ‘shell’ patent at
best i.e. unenforceable patent until after being examined and certified by the patent office.
In this regard, the owner of Malaysian certificate of utility innovation is in a comparatively better
position.
This paper submits that there is not so much in term of speedy approval and less expensive fees
offered by the Malaysian second-tier patent system with the result that no disadvantageous trade
off is imposed by the Malaysian Patent Act for those wishing to avail the protection of certificate
of utility innovation for their inventions apart from the single claim only limitation which can be
circumvented by a carefully drafted specification.
With regard to term of protection, the owner of the Malaysian certificate of innovation enjoys the
same maximum twenty years protection accorded to the owner of a Malaysian standard patent
albeit in the case of certificate of utility innovation, the five-plus-five years period after the lapse
of the first ten years must be applied for by the owner.
This paper further submits that the applicant and owner of the Malaysian certificate of utility
innovation is comparatively in better stead than the applicant and owner of a Malaysian standard
patent firstly because in the application stage the requirement for inventive step is being totally
done away with and secondly the safeguard provided by Section 15 which exclude the
application of Part X to utility innovation with the result that compulsory licences are not
available for inventions protected by certificate of utility innovation.
17
However, it is submitted that the most obvious difference between the Malaysian certificate of
utility innovation and the Australian innovation patent is that the Malaysian utility innovation is
not a ‘shell’ patent in that the owner of a certificate of utility innovation may enforce his
exclusive rights in court of competent jurisdiction after the grant of the certificate of utility
innovation.
As a conclusion, based on the discussion above, this paper submits that the Malaysian utility
innovation system vary substantially from and is more practical and advantageous than the
Australian innovation patent system.
REFERENCE
Statutes and Books
1. The Malaysian Patents Act 1983 (Act 291) as at 1st November 2006
2. The Malaysian Patents Regulations 1986 as at 1st November 2006
3. The Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act No. 83 of 1990) as at 8th July 2010
4. The Australian Patents Regulations 1991 (Statutory Rules 1991 No. 71) as at 1st August 2010
5. Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia. Guidelines For Patent Examination In The Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia,2004
6. Suthersanen,U., Dutfield, G. and Kit, B.C. (2007), “Invention without patent : Harnessing the creative spirit in a diverse world”.Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd,UK
Internet
1. IP Australia website accessible at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/index.html
18
19