Does New Zealand need innovation patents?

For example, the criteria for granting an application are likely to include:

• Introducing an "absolute novelty" standard
• "Obviousness standard"
• Defining a "manner of manufacture"
• Application of "an inventive step"
• "Usefulness" - demonstrating specific, substantial and credible utility

These proposed changes will have an impact on a number of future New Zealand inventions. Currently, the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office (IPONZ) only examine for novelty and not inventive step. Therefore, some inventions which would have been previously granted under the 1953 Act may not meet these criteria under the proposed bill. A number of New Zealand inventions we assess for patentability are novel, but are not particularly inventive. Despite this, they may include an "innovative" step.

However, the current bill is not looking to adopt an innovation patent system as per Australia. The innovation patent system in Australia has been very successful. The aim of the innovation patent system is to encourage Australian businesses, particularly SMEs, to develop incremental inventions and market them in Australia, by providing a second-tier patent system, offering quick and less expensive protection of inventions, but with a lower inventive threshold. In exchange, the protection received does not last as long (only eight years, against 20 years for a standard patent).

An innovative step only requires that the invention varies from what was previously known in a way that makes a substantial or real contribution to the working of the invention. Consequently, even if the difference is an obvious variation, it may still qualify as an innovative step.

New Zealand businesses are predominately SMEs and could make good use of this system. Do you agree or disagree that New Zealand should also look at adopting an innovation patent system?