Goodhew Jo: Patents Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoodhew Jo: Patents Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata):I wish to begin my contribution on the Patents Bill’s first reading by acknowledging the contributions by members from Labour the Green Party and the Māori Party. There is every indication that the submissions on this bill will be very interesting maybe even fascinating. I look forward as a member of the Commerce Committee to hearing those submissions and to further debate on this bill.This bill replaces the Patents Act 1953 and reforms and modernises New Zealand’s patent law. It would be fair to say that not only is the Patents Act a last-century Act but it is significantly early in the last century. The fact that this bill was introduced is an indication that it is perhaps long overdue for review. This bill was introduced in July 2008—I acknowledge that—but it is now having its first reading under the sponsorship of the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power. In short because a patent provides a form of monopoly right—and it has been covered by other members here this evening—the granting of patents can impose costs on society particularly as most patents granted in New Zealand are granted to applicants from outside New Zealand. It is consistent with National’s philosophies that we should be looking at all ways to minimise costs; here it is to ensure that the patents system provides a net benefit to society. Patents should therefore be granted only for genuine innovations that are new involve an inventive step and are useful.In speaking today on the first reading of the Patents Bill I believe that it would be useful to start with an outline of what I understand a patent to be. A patent is a right granted by the Commissioner of Patents after an examination process by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand to prevent others from using an invention for 20 years. That is a significant period of time. The right continues for that length of time provided that renewal fees are paid by the end of the fourth seventh 10th  and 13th years after the grant. The patents regulatory system is established under the Act that I previously mentioned—the Patents Act 1953—and the Patents Regulations of the following year 1954. That 1953 Act was based on the United Kingdom’s Patents Act of 1949. The statute was replaced in the United Kingdom by the Patents Act 1977 and the Act made significant changes to the United Kingdom’s patent laws. But New Zealand as I have mentioned has made no substantial changes since 1953.The law in relation to patents in the United Kingdom and New Zealand has its origins in England in the early modern period. Patents giving monopolies for new inventions were first granted by Queen Elizabeth I to encourage the establishment of new industries within the realm. In 1623 Parliament passed the Statute of Monopolies which restricted monopolies already granted and prohibited the granting of new monopolies except to the true and first inventors of—and I quote—“a manner of new manufacture” that was not being used by others at the time of the grant. So this concept is one that goes back many hundreds of years.A patent may be granted for an invention that is a manner of new manufacture and entitles the grantee—that is the patent owner—to a right to exclude others from making using or assigning the patented invention during the term of the patent. The patent owner must make public a complete description of the invention so that once the patent expires other persons will be able to use it.The purpose of this bill—and I intend to elaborate on the purpose—is to “ensure that a patent is granted for an invention only in appropriate circumstances by establishing appropriate criteria for the granting of a patent; and providing for procedures that allow the validity of a patent to be tested; and provide greater certainty for patent owners and the users of patented inventions that patents will be valid after they are granted; and address Māori concerns relating to the granting of patents for inventions derived from indigenous plants and animals or from Māori traditional knowledge; and promote quality expertise and integrity in the profession of patent attorneys; and ensure that New Zealand’s patent regime takes account of international developments.”Members may well be thinking: “What is the need for this bill?”. Well there are plenty of reasons why this bill is needed and I would like to go through some of those reasons. It is to strengthen the criteria for granting a patent by introducing an absolute novelty standard—and maybe the novelty aspect might interest those opposite—examination for inventive step and usefulness and a whole of contents approach to dealing with conflicting applications and to provide that the current requirement for the commissioner to give applicants the benefit of the doubt when deciding whether to grant a patent be replaced by the balance of probabilities approach.This bill retains the current definition of patentable subject matter as a manner of manufacture but provides specific exclusions from patent protection for human beings and biological processes for their generation methods of medical treatment of human beings plant varieties and inventions whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to public order or morality.This bill seeks to establish a Māori advisory committee to provide advice to the commissioner in respect of patent applications for inventions involving indigenous plants and animals—and here I acknowledge the concerns of the member for the Māori Party in respect of that and look forward to addressing in the select committee some of those concerns as I am sure they will come through in submissions.The bill seeks to introduce a specific experimental use exception into New Zealand’s patent legislation.It is clear to me from reading the notes around the bill and commentary that this bill will significantly improve current legislation; it will significantly bring patent law into the realms of this century. It will provide for automatic publication of patent applications at 18 months from the earliest priority date and provide that where an invention involves a micro-organism the requirements for disclosure of the invention can be met by depositing a specimen of the micro-organism in a recognised depositary—and one may only wonder what would happen if in fact instead of that a complete description of that micro-organism were given.The bill will provide that all examiners’ reports and communications relating to a patent application be open to public inspection once the application has been accepted and provide that disclosures of an invention up to 12 months prior to the filing of an application will not destroy novelty if the disclosure was derived from the inventor and disclosed without the inventor’s consent.As members present can tell this bill is significant. One has only to look at the bill itself to see that there will be quite some interest in its various clauses and I expect that we will be receiving a number of submissions from interested parties.I want to cover again some of the exclusions from this bill because I think it is important that we note these exclusions. An invention is not patentable if the commercial exploitation of the invention is contrary to public order or morality. It will be interesting to hear how those two terms are in fact determined. In addition the following are not patentable: human beings and biological processes for their generation inventions of methods of treatment of human beings by surgery or therapy inventions of methods of diagnosis practised on human beings and plant varieties.The wording of this exclusion is intended to be consistent with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and it is interesting perhaps for us to note here that this agreement states: “Patents shall be available for any inventions whether products or processes in all fields of technology provided that they are new involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. … patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”In addition under patent ownership this bill provides that a patent for an invention may be granted only to a person who is the inventor who derives title to the invention from the inventor or who is the personal representative of a deceased person mentioned previously and that patent ownership is particularly important.This bill also deals with ways in which disputes can be dealt with.