Lotu-Iiga Sam: Patents Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Patents Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie):I rise to speak on the Patents Bill and may I first acknowledge the first two speakers the Hon Chris Finlayson the Attorney-General as well as the Hon David Parker for their contributions tonight. I think they have both made valuable contributions to our discussion and debate tonight. I also acknowledge the previous Associate Minister of Commerce the Hon Judith Tizard—who is of course the next person on the Labour list—for introducing this bill on 9 July 2008.We have already heard tonight that the purpose of the Patents Bill is to update the Patents Act 1953. This update is well overdue as both previous speakers have explicitly intimated in their representations. Our Act is based on the United Kingdom’s Patents Act 1949. But of course a number of amendments to the UK Act have been made subsequently—not only the Patents Act 1977 but also the Patents Act 2004 which made a number of legislative developments to UK statutes.Intellectual property of which patents are only a part has been touted as the foundation for New Zealand’s economic development into the future. As we have already discussed tonight the current statute which is 56 years old is largely outdated and most other countries examine for both novelty and inventive step. Many countries examine for usefulness as well. When we consider both those concepts we find that nearly all developed countries that have such legislation consider that information should be made available anywhere in the world. Applicants are generally given the benefit of the doubt in any dispute.Novelty is currently determined on the basis of what is known or used in New Zealand. Sadly information available overseas but not in New Zealand is not considered when determining novelty. As previous speakers have suggested the consequence of this is that patent rights granted in New Zealand are often broader than the patent rights granted in other countries for the same invention.If we look to the Australian experience we see that Australia’s current law is being reformed. The first of the two pertinent areas that the Australians are looking at is patentable subject matter. The main legal test in Australia in terms of whether an invention is patentable subject matter involves the manner of manufacture. The three main tests are its breadth whether its patents are allowed in subject matters and whether the granting of patents hinders innovation investment and public access to new technologies.The second area of concern to the Australian legislature that is being reviewed is the post-grant patent enforcement strategies for which there is also a current consultation process in place. In the United States congressman John Conyers introduced the Patent Reform Bill in March of this year. It overhauls the US patent system in order to harmonise US laws with international best practice and to award patent coverage to entities that first file a patent application. The US patent law currently operates under a first-to-invent system.We have heard various definitions of patents tonight. However the expression “use of patents” could be understood in different ways. For example a business might use someone else’s patent to develop an improvement and then apply to patent that improvement. This is at the heart of our patent system. In exchange for making inventions publicly known the inventor is given sole rights to profit from the invention for a limited period of time. Using patents could also be understood to refer to applying for patents to protect one’s own inventions. Many thousands of patents are applied for each year in New Zealand but the majority are applied on behalf of overseas companies. Although patents must be granted in New Zealand to have validity here most New Zealand patents are of foreign origin and protect the inventions of foreign applicants. Patents are classified in New Zealand under the International Patent Classification system or the IPC. This system is quite different from that of the United States which has subject class numbers shown on the patent record.The main purpose of this bill is to ensure that the patent is granted for inventions in appropriate circumstances only by establishing appropriate criteria and providing procedures that allow for the validity of that patent to be tested. In terms of the reforms being proposed in this country it is unique that we will be addressing Māori concerns relating to the granting of patents for inventions derived from indigenous plants and animals or traditional Māori knowledge. Of particular importance will be the establishment of a Māori advisory committee to advise the Commissioner of Patents in this area. The relationship that our Government is forming with the Māori Party is really important as are the number of initiatives that we are putting in place to address the needs of tangata whenua. This is just another example of our positive work with the Māori Party.The bill is also designed to improve and promote the quality expertise and integrity in the profession of patent attorneys. I have talked about some of the international developments and this new regime will take some of those into account.I will say a quick word about some of the exclusions under this bill. An invention is not patentable if the commercial exploitation of that invention is contrary to public order or morality. We have also heard that human beings and biological processes for their generation cannot be patented as well as inventions of methods of treatment of human beings by surgery or therapy. Of course some of these changes and proposed clauses will be subject to select committee consideration and we look forward to healthy discussion on this at the Commerce Committee when we go through the various clauses.Clause 21(1) “Who may be granted patent” states: “A patent for an invention may only be granted to a person who—(a) is the inventor; or (b) derives title to the invention from the inventor; or (c) is the personal representative of a deceased person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).”I sum up by saying that I support this bill. There is much discussion to be had at the select committee around some of its clauses but overall these amendments are long overdue. They bring us up to scratch with international best practice and I support this bill. Thank you.