Bond Ria: Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBond Ria: Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RIA BOND (NZ First): I would just like to start this evening by saying that I am really pleased to be back in the House. I have found that being away for the past 8 weeks has been rather interesting but I have been really pleased at a local level in my office being kept really busy helping constituents.I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the first reading of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The New Zealand Patents Act 2013 which took effect on 13 September 2014 constituted a comprehensive redrafting of New Zealand’s patents law. Given the scale of this mammoth exercise I am not surprised that once again this Government has passed legislation that has had unintended effects and consequences. Last year two anomalies were identified in the legislation. These two anomalies were firstly the possibility of a post-acceptance or a lack of unity attack which could place patent applicants in the difficult position of having to choose between two valuable independent claims; and secondly significant uncertainty surrounding patent filing dates on which validity may turn.New Zealand First is not surprised that this Government has brought forward the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill because this bill proposes three main things as previous speakers have discussed in the House tonight. Three main areas are proposed as changes: the amendment to the grounds on which a person can oppose the grant of a patent under the Patents Act 2013 a single patent application process and a single patent examination process with Australia and a joint registration regime with Australia for patent attorneys.As I said earlier tonight the Patents Act took effect in September 2014 and issues have arisen specifically the grounds on which a third party or third parties can oppose the grant of a patent on an accepted patent application. This allows the grant of a patent to be opposed on the grounds that an accepted patent application claiming patent protection for more than one invention can be put simply as lack of unity of invention. For those folks at home tonight who are watching and are finding tonight’s discussion a little bit confusing I will try to give you an example that is quite straightforward and quite simple. The example that I am going to give you tonight is that I have invented the rPhone. The rPhone is one component of my full unit. The second is my proprietary battery. However my battery fails to be protected under the patent. Therefore it gives a third party the opportunity to develop a battery that will fit into my one unit under the patent. That puts me as an inventor at an absolute disadvantage.I think that this issue was not a ground for opposition under the Patents Act 1953 which was replaced by the Patents Act 2013. I can see that there was no policy intention by this Government to introduce lack of unity of invention as a ground for opposition in the Patents Act 2013. From the simple example I have used tonight with my rPhone invention I had one unit invented with two major components: the rPhone and the proprietary battery. If this ground remains as it is then the patent applicant may be as I said unfairly disadvantaged.New Zealand First does support this bill because this bill will amend the application so that the patent protection is claimed for only one invention. That means the applicant will lose patent rights to the invention or inventions such as the proprietary battery for my rPhone invention that I have given which would have put me at a disadvantage and allowed a different battery to go into my invention. Therefore the proposal in this bill is to amend section 92(1)(c) of the principal Act to specify and exclude lack of unity of invention as a ground for opposition. New Zealand First is looking forward to listening to the submitters at the select committee talk specifically to this so that we can actually get I guess a more informed grasp of this particularly.The second main change proposed is the single patent application process and single patent examination process with Australia for patent attorneys. Currently since the Patents Act 2013 took effect the documentation that must be provided for both Australia and New Zealand patent applications is almost—well essentially it is the same. The criteria for granting a patent are now more similar to those in Australia but with significant differences. The procedure for examining the two patent applications is the same however.What has been discovered is the significant degree of duplication of work between the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand also known as the IPONZ and the Australian Patent Office also known as IP Australia. This duplication of work does increase costs and complexity for applicants. Given that around 95 percent of the patent applications filed in New Zealand have a corresponding application filed in Australia it makes common sense to have a consistent approach to establishing a single portal application where applicants may wish to apply for the same invention in both countries and we can also access that in either portal. This allows applicants to file one set of documents and pay one fee. That generates two applications: a New Zealand one which is sent to the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand and an Australian application which is sent to the Australian Patent Office for further processing.The third main change is the joint registration regime with Australia for patent attorneys. In New Zealand they make up a small profession that provides specialist advice to businesses obtaining and protecting intellectual property especially obtaining patents and registering trademarks. Currently there are 493 patent attorneys who reside in Australia or New Zealand and who are registered in both countries so that is 55 percent of Australian and New Zealand patent attorneys. Often it is asked what the benefits for patent attorneys will be and we can see quite clearly that it is less red tape and increased business opportunities for attorneys not currently registered in both countries.I do want to bring it to the attention of the Government that I find this is an area that is quite complex in the regulatory impact statements and the debate pack and the ministerial statements that I have read through today. As I said earlier New Zealand First will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee because we actually look forward to hearing from the submitters at the select committee as to how these three main points that are proposed for changes in this bill can actually affect increase or invigorate competition between Australia and New Zealand. So in saying that I listened to the previous speakers tonight and the fact that we are all supporting this bill says that we are concerned about patent application and the protection of inventors when they do invent a specific invention that is going to take the world by storm.I want to look at the statistics that I asked the Parliamentary Library to prepare for me today and they in some ways do actually add to these proposed changes. Interestingly enough in the years 2005-15—and there is no definition as to exactly what it costs for these businesses to go through the process. The number of prosecutions under the New Zealand Patents Act 1953 in 2013 was 54. These prosecutions have occurred in New Zealand for inventions protected under the New Zealand Patents Act. What it does not tell me though—it does not show the inventions developed in New Zealand that are copied in overseas jurisdictions. So I have got this chart here that I am really looking forward as a member of the Commerce Committee to using to ask those questions and to get some solid answers because there are areas in this bill that still do not quite explain the ins and outs for me. So New Zealand First looks forward to this bill going to the select committee. Thank you.