X
Intellectual property has taken the centre stage in the modern economy. The big rush on new technology has never stopped, and never has its impact on our lives been so direct, fast and pervasive. Patent, trade mark, design and copyright have become a lexicon for the ordinary and not just the tech geeks. Indeed, the creation of the mind has become the biggest and the largest asset of the future. Protecting, managing and commercialising IP has become a crucial factor to the success of a business today. From securing your IP rights and managing IP portfolio to enforcing IP assets against infringers, we cover the full range of IP issues throughout the entire lifecycle of IP assets. We understand how crucial IP assets are to your business and can assist you in navigating the regulatory landscape by partnering with you to safeguard, and maximise the value of, your intellectual property rights.

Key Practices

Professionals

Noel Kim

Noel Kim

Consultant

Insights

MORE >


Intellectual Property

Recent Reforms to the Australian Designs Act

According to the recent reforms to the Australia Designs Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act), amended by enactment of the Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Act 2021, Australian design laws became more flexible and its registration system more streamlined. The key amendments that came into effect as of 10 March 2022 are below.   Introduction of a Grace Period The introduction of a grace period is the most noticeable change to the Act. Under the old Act, if a designer was purposefully or inadvertently published prior to applying for the design registration, the design became prior art and thus lost its potential to be registered in Australia. The Act now includes a grace period provision which allows designers to have up to 12 months between publishing their design and filing an application for registration, bringing Australia’s designs law system in line with those of other nations like the United States of America. The grace period provision only applies to a publication or use that occurred on or after 10 March 2022.   Infringement Exemption for Prior Use The newly introduced grace period may create uncertainty for those who are not the registered owner of a design but have utilised the design during the grace period. As a result, a prior use exemption is also introduced to the Act in which you could avoid infringement of a registered design if your use occurred before the priority date of the registered design. This exemption seeks to strike a reasonable balance between owners’ and third-party interests and is intended to reduce the risk of designers waiting too long to file a design application after publicly disclosing the design, such as filing it towards the expiry date of the 12-month grace period.   Relief for Innocent Infringer Given that Australian designs are not published before they are registered, if someone used the design in between the filing and registration they would be at risk of infringement of the design. If you are found to be an innocent infringer, the court is able to refuse to pay compensation or lower the amount of damages. To rely on the innocent infringer defence, you must prove that you were unaware of the existence of a design application, that you had no reasonable means of knowing and that you had taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether the design was registered.   Exclusive licensee’s entitlement to bring infringement proceedings Previously, only the registered design owner could file a lawsuit if their design was allegedly infringed. Given that a substantial number of owners of Australian registered designs do not reside in Australia and that they are often reluctant to participate in court proceedings due to the costs, the exclusive licensees are relatively disadvantaged. The Act now allows an exclusive licensee of a registered design to initiate an infringement lawsuit in its name without the involvement of the design’s owner, thereby saving time and money spent informing or depending on the owner, when a third party infringes the design rights.    Removal of publication option The Act has also eliminated the option to request publication when a design application is filed. The purpose of the publication was to strategically put the design into the prior art base without pursuing the registration. However, this option was rarely used and also increased ambiguity to individual applicants as to which options they should choose. Further, the Act has introduced an automatic examination of a formality if a registration is not requested within 6 months of the filing date. Under the old Act, a design application would lapse if registration was not requested within 6 months.   Renewal of Design Registration It was unclear whether third parties were subject to infringement of a registered design in case the registered owner had not paid the renewal fees during the 6-month grace period for renewal. The amended Act makes it clear that a registered design does not cease if the renewal fee is paid within that timeframe.   Standard of the Familiar Person Test The Act also reduced litigation risks by clarifying the court’s ‘the standard of the informed user’ test to the less rigorous ‘the standard of the familiar person’ test. The informed user is a hypothetical individual whose knowledge and attributes are used to determine whether the designs are substantially similar in the overall impression. The Act now specifies that the notional person does not have to be a ‘user’ of the product in question but a person who is just familiar with the product or similar goods. The new familiar person test provision has been effective from 11 September 2021.   Written on 25/03/2022 Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication.


Intellectual Property

Australian patent term extension in favour of patentees

Australian patent term extension in favour of patentees - Ono Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 643   Summary: ·        Ono Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd’s (Ono) Australian patent No. 2011203119 concerns two cancer drugs: third party’s KEYTRUDA and the patentee’s own OPDIVO. ·        Both KEYTRUDA and OPDIVO received regulatory approval in Australia, but the third party’s KEYTRUDA was approved earlier than the patentee’s own OPDIVO. ·        To cover all its bases, Ono applied for a patent term extension (PTE) based on the two products, but its preferred option was to acquire the PTE based on OPDIVO’s approval to obtain the maximum term of the PTE.   ·        However, the Commissioner of Patents granted the PTE based on KEYTRUDA because KEYTRUDA was approved first and therefore should form the basis of the request. ·        Ono challenged the decision in the Federal Court of Australia, which overturned the Commissioner’s decision, finding that a PTE must be granted based on the regulatory approval date of a patentee's own pharmaceutical product.   The regulatory examination of a new pharmaceutical product is the apex for research, development and commercialisation within the pharmaceutical industry. For this reason, developing and receiving regulatory approval for pharmaceutical products takes a lengthy time. Recognising the time required between when a patent is filed and when regulatory approval is acquired, the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) allows applicants to apply for a patent term extension up to five years in addition to the statutory term of twenty years.     For a patent to be eligible for a term extension, the following criteria must be satisfied: ·        a pharmaceutical substance must be disclosed in the patent and must fall within the scope of a claim; ·        products containing or consisting of that pharmaceutical substance must be included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG); and ·        there must be at least five years between the date of the patent and the date of the first regulatory approval for the substance.   Background Ono Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 643 concerned Ono’s Australian patent No. 2011203119 on monoclonal antibodies that bind to PD-1. The substance of those antibodies were disclosed in its competitor’s product, namely KEYTRUDA, and Ono’s own product, OPDIVO. Both KEYTRUDA and OPDIVO were approved by ARTG, but on different dates (KEYTRUDA first and 9 months later OPDIVO).  Ono simultaneously filed two PTE requests: one based on KEYTRUDA, which received ARTG approval on 16 April 2015 and another based on OPDIVO, which received approval on 11 January 2016. The PTE request based on KEYTRUDA was accompanied by a request for an extension of time. Although the patentee filed two requests, its preferred option was to acquire the PTE on OPDIVO’s regulatory approval date, as it would have resulted in a longer extended term for them (almost 9 months). Thus, the question at issue was which regulatory approval date was relevant for deciding the patentee’s PTE request. The Australian Patent Office found that because KEYTRUDA was the first pharmaceutical product to fall within the scope of the claims, the PTE should be granted on the date of KEYTRUDA’s approval even though it was produced by a third party.    Federal Court of Australia’s decision Ono disagreed and appealed the Commissioner’s decision in the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal was heard by Justice Beach, who overturned the Deputy’s Commissioner’s decision on 11 June 2021. His Honour reached this conclusion by analysing s 70, 71, and s 77 of the Act, claiming that the Commissioner’s interpretation of the Act was ‘dictated by strict textualism.’ Justice Beach queried, ‘The extension of term regime is beneficial and remedial. It is designed to compensate a patentee of a pharmaceutical substance for the loss in time before exploiting its invention. It is designed to remedy the mischief of a shortened period for an effective monopoly that has been caused by delays in obtaining a regulatory approval. Accordingly, a liberal rather than a literal construction is to be preferred.’ [135]. For this reason, Justice Beach agreed with Ono that interpreting the Act in such a way that approval of a PTE application being based on a product held by an unrelated third party rather than a product developed by the patentee is ‘manifestly absurd and/or unreasonable’ because a patentee would be denied compensation for the time lost in securing marketing approval for its product, which will be contrary to the legislative intention. His Honour added that it was not open to the Commissioner to calculate the term of the extension solely based on products sponsored by the patentee. Instead, that the patentee’s interpretation of the statutory language should be consistent with the legislative objective. Accordingly, the Court found that Ono’s patent should be extended on the basis of the date of the regulatory approval of its own product.   Implications The fundamental implication is that the six-month timeframe for filing a PTE application begins when the patentee’s own products are first included on the ARTG, not when they are first included on the ARTG of a third party. Consequently, this decision will now be the blueprint that sets out that patentees will no longer be burdened with the task of monitoring product listings on the ARTG to avoid situations in which their PTE request is forced to be based on a third-party product. Ultimately, this approach simplifies the extension regime and enables patentees to maximise their term extension. This adaptation is much more workable, bringing Australia into conformity with other key markets like the USA. In contrast, explicit discussions such as licensee or sponsors of the patentee have not been discussed. It appears that the PTE rules are meant to capture such ‘friendly’ arrangements in which the patentee has a commercial interest in the product listed on the ARTG by its commercial partners, as Justice Beach’s reasoning implies. Further, in circumstances where a patent covers more than one approved pharmaceutical substance, the decision implies that a PTE request does not have to be based on the substance that was approved earliest if the earliest product was produced by a third party. Noting that the Federal Court’s approach is contrary to longstanding practice of the Commissioner, the Patents Office has appealed the decision so there will be more news to come.   Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication.  


Intellectual Property

Introduction of New Australian Domain Name

The auDA (.au Domain Administration Ltd) manages and oversees the development and administration of Australian domains such as .com.au, .net.au, and .org.au. Australian domain names must meet the auDA’s minimum registration criteria, and only an Australian company, a foreign company registered in Australia, or an applicant or a registrant of the Australian trade mark are eligible for registration. The domain name should also be in the applicant’s legal name, business name, Australian trade name, or brand name closely associated with its trading name.   In April 2021, auDA implemented more rigorous qualifying conditions for domain names and proscribed its proprietors from licensing, renting, or leasing a domain name to third parties.   Previously, all an entity had to do was show that its trade mark and its chosen domain name had a similar or close affiliation. That, however, is no longer the case. Now, the domain name must contain the same word as the trade mark. For instance, if ‘Beauty & the Beast Salon' is a registered trade mark, then an available domain name would be 'beautybeastsalon.com.au', whereas abbreviated forms such as bbsalon.com.au and other mix and match words such as beautybestsalon.com.au may violate the rules.   In the case of the .org.au domain, religious organisations, sports clubs, charitable organisations, and other unincorporated associations that are not registered with ACNC (Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission) are no longer eligible to have that domain.   Under the amended rules, .au domain owners are no longer permitted to rent, lease, or sub-license their domain names. Since auDA aims to improve consumer website management and transparency by ensuring that the registration of a domain name is the website’s operator, any sub-domains derived from a company’s primary domain are also subject to this limitation.    auDA also introduced new complaint-handling procedures which allow an entity to request that a domain name be revoked through a systematic process if the registrant does not fulfil the eligibility pre-requisite. This is a significant change from the past when domain name complaints or disputes had to be resolved through court proceedings or auDRP (.au Domain Dispute Procedure) mediation. Thereby, the complaints handling process is projected to be more efficient and cost-effective because of this adjustment.   The above-changed rules were already in effect from 12 April 2021 and apply to all registrations, renewals, licencing, renting, and leasing to third parties from this date. It is crucial to verify that your current domain names comply with the new rules, so you do not inadvertently lose your domain names.   In addition to the tightened domain rules, a new Australian .au domain will be introduced. It is anticipated that overseas-based companies with corporations or branches in Australia will commonly employ this strategy to show their affiliation to Australia, for instance maintaining the new .au domain name toyota.au in addition to toyota.com.au.   To register for the new .au domain under this new scheme, you must be (i) an Australian citizen or permanent resident, (ii) an enterprise registered under the Australian Corporations Act (The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)), (iii) a foreign company with an ARBN under the Australian Corporations Act, or (iv) an individual or business with an ABN under the Australian Corporate Law. In addition, if you hold an Australian trade mark and the applicable domain name that explicitly matches the trade name, you may meet qualifying criteria.   Applications for the new domain is now open from 24 March 2022, and registrants of the existing .com.au domain will be able to register the new .au domain with the same name as the current domain name through the ‘Priority Status’ application for six months until 24 September 2022. Domains that were not registered during the six months will be available for public registration on a first-come, first-served basis. If multiple people apply for priority registration under the same domain name and there is no agreement between the parties, auDA will intervene and decide who owns the domain.   We urge those who own or manage a website in Australia to be familiar with the new Aussie domain and the rule changes, and to seek advice from intellectual property law professionals if you encounter any domain-related issues.   written on 25 Nov 2021   Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication.


Intellectual Property

Is it possible for an AI (Artificial Intelligence) to be an inventor?

Is it possible for an AI (Artificial Intelligence) to be an inventor? - Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879   Summary: ●       Dr Stephen Thaler (Thaler) filed an Australian patent application for an invention that was created autonomously by an AI system called ‘DABUS’. ●       IP Australia rejected the patent application, determining that only a human can be named as an inventor for an Australian patent. ●       Thaler successfully appealed to the Federal Court, which ruled that an AI could be appointed as an inventor for the purpose of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act).   In recent years, the topic of whether AI can be an inventor has been at the forefront of patent laws in numerous countries. Defining the term ‘AI-generated invention’ has triggered a heated discussion over the future of patent law and policy. While it is widely agreed that such discoveries contradict the concept of human inventorship, it is unclear to what extent topics regarding ‘non-human’ creativity are justified. This raises the question of how AI may autonomously create innovations and how AI-generated ideas differ from AI-assisted ideas. The Australian Federal Court recently handed down the world’s first judgment in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879, acknowledging AI as an inventor under Australian patent law with the broad interpretation of s15(1) of the Act. This advances our understanding of who can be the owner of the ‘solutions’ made accessible by these new technologies and how to utilise artificial intelligence to promote economic wellbeing through technological innovation.   Background   Thaler filed Australian Patent Application No. 2019363177 for ‘Food Container and Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention’ on 17 September 2019 by the national entry of the corresponding PCT application. Thaler created The Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) to devise, on its own accord, novel ideas such as enhanced storage beverage containers and ‘neural flame’ for search-and-rescue operations. Equivalent patent applications have also been filed in 16 countries including Canada, China, Germany, India, Israel, South Africa, the UK, South Korea and the US. However, the European Patent Office refused to examine Thaler’s patent application on 21 December 2019, citing a failure to comply with their requirement that “an inventor designated in the application must be a human being, not a machine.” Based on the ideology that only natural individuals can be inventors, most countries, including the US, the UK and South Korea, have rejected Thaler’s patent application. So far, the South African Patents Office has only accepted the application but bear in mind that there was no substantive examination prior to this grant in South Africa, Australia is the first jurisdiction to permit a patent invented by a robot creator.   IP Australia’s decision  The Deputy Commissioner of Patents determined that Thaler’s application did not satisfy the requirements under s15 of the Act since the ordinary meaning of the word “inventor,” as defined by numerous dictionaries, is essentially human (natural or legal). The Deputy Commissioner asserted that the Patent Regulations 1991 (Cth) (Regulations) imply that the term ‘inventor’ refers to a person and that s15(1) of the Act, which specifies who is eligible for a patent, also stipulates that the inventor must be a human. Further, an AI system cannot have a beneficial interest or title in the property, so an AI’s invention cannot be assigned. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner rejected Thaler’s patent application since it failed to designate a human inventor. Thaler applied for a judicial review to the Federal Court of Australia.   Federal Court of Australia’s decision The appeal was heard by Justice Beach, who overturned the Deputy Commissioner’s decisions on 30 July 2021. Justice Beach noted that neither the Act nor the Regulations explicitly define the term ‘inventor’. The term ‘inventor’ is a noun that acts as an ‘agent,’ which can be a person or a thing. Therefore, claiming that a non-human/non-person cannot be an inventor is a fallacy. Henceforth, DABUS can be referred to as an ‘inventor’ as it satisfies the agent noun component. Justice Beach queried, ‘If the output of an artificial intelligence system is said to be the invention, who is the inventor? And if a human is required, who? The programmer? The owner? The operator? The trainer? The person who provided input data? All of the above? None of the above?’ In this regard, the Court acknowledged that Thaler owned DABUS’ source code (as the copyright owner of the source code) and the computer on which it was administered. Based on the concept of ‘deriving a title’ extending to assignments and title transfers, Thaler was found to have absolute ownership and control of the computer on which the program runs (i.e. DABUS). His Honour reached his conclusion based on a combination of legislative interpretation and policy considerations. Justice Beach believes that the term ‘inventor’ should not be interpreted narrowly since doing so would hinder innovation not just in the field of computer science but in all other scientific areas that may benefit from the output of an artificial intelligence’s system. Similarly, His Honour emphasised the fundamental significance of giving effect to the Act’s objective unless its terms or context requires the statutory definition. Justice Beach added that computer inventorship facilitates and incentivises computer scientists to develop novel inventions, resulting in new scientific advantages. So unlike the copyright law which mandates a human author, the Act does not exclude non-human inventors.   Implications Justice Beach posited in this case that “We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create?” This significant judgment implies that applications claiming AI as their inventor will no longer be denied on the grounds of failing to name a human inventor. Subsequently, some critics have voiced concerns that granting patent protection to AI-generated inventions may increase the threshold of originality of ‘person skilled in the art,’ making it more challenging for human inventors to obtain patent rights. Furthermore, allowing AI to be an inventor may encourage humans to create AI systems that undertake innovative activities on behalf of humans. It is worth considering whether this serves the Act’s objective of ‘providing a patent system in Australia that promotes economic wellbeing through technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology’ (s2A of the Act). On the other hand, those who favour patent rights for AI-generated ideas believe that the decision will encourage more creation and publication of AI-based breakthroughs. Especially because many pharmaceutical and computer science enterprises and other scientific areas may greatly benefit from an AI system’s output. IP Australia announced on 30 August 2021 that the Commissioner of Patents has decided to appeal the Federal Court’s decision. So stay tuned for more exciting news.   Written by Noel Kim (Partner) & Lisa Kwak (Paralegal) Written on 10/09/2021   Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication.  


Intellectual Property

Australia Trade marks Law

Australia’s intellectual property office, IP Australia (www.ipaustralia.gov.au), and New Zealand’s intellectual property office, IPONZ (www.iponz.govt.nsw), are their respective countries’ intellectual property rights administrative agencies. IP Australia and IPONZ administer applications for trade marks and handle oppositions to intellectual property rights. They also process other administrative work such as renewal, transfer and cancellation of trade marks. Australia/ New Zealand laws allow trade marks for characters, numbers, figures and combinations of these, and trade marks can also include smell, sound and colour. A registered trade mark is valid for 10 years, and upon payment of renewal fees, may be renewed on a 10-year basis. However, even a registered trade mark, if not used for a certain period, may be cancelled by opposition from a third party.  Trade marks can be registered in one of two ways: the first is to register the trade mark internationally through the Madrid Protocol; the second is to register through IP Australia/IPONZ. A product or service to be trade marked must be classified in accordance with the International NICE classification which lists 1 to 45 classes. The procedure to register trade marks in Australia and New Zealand are as follows:  Investigation of previous trademarks.        -  A review of possible infringement and registration of the same or similar trade marks.    2. Trade mark application        - The applicant’s English name, address, trade mark and designated products/services.        - Details of priority right if claiming under a treaty.        - English translation of the trade mark if not written in English.        - For applications in New Zealand - whether the trade mark will be used in New Zealand.    3. Assessment of the trade mark application        - Takes up to 4-5 months from the date of application (can apply for expedited examination in cases of emergency).        - For applications in New Zealand, takes 3-4 weeks from the date of application.        - Review whether there have been conflicts with prior trade marks, distinguishing features of the trademark, etc.        - If any reason for rejection has been identified, an initial report of the examination will be issued and the applicant will have 15 months from the date of the report to respond to that.        - For application in New Zealand, the applicant must respond to the rejection within 12 months from the date of the initial report.        - When applying for a trademark in Australia/New Zealand through the Madrid Protocol, if an examination report has been issued,           an agent must be appointed in Australia/New Zealand for the purpose of responding to the rejection.      4. Application notice and objection        - Upon the satisfaction of all requirements, notification will be advertised on the public notice board for two months.        - For applications in New Zealand, the public notice will continue for 3 months.        - If an objection is filed within the deadline, a separate objection procedure will be carried out.     5. Registration of trade mark         - If there is no objection, the registration of the trade mark will be completed and a certificate of registration will be issued electronically            (in a PDF format).         - The validity of the trade mark is for 10 years (can be renewed every 10 years). An owner of a registered trade mark is entitled to the exclusive use of the trade mark in Australia/New Zealand. Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct an investigation for existing trade marks to avoid infringing on others’ trademark rights when entering the Australian/New Zealand market. If the trade mark you wish to use is registrable, it is best to register it as soon as possible in order for it to be protected. Registering a trade mark will prevent future infringement on the trade mark rights by other competitors. In addition, upon the registration, customs in Australia and New Zealand can seize products being imported if a registered trade mark is infringed. Registered trade marks can use the ® symbol which gives consumers an exclusively protected brand image. Subsequently, a registered trade mark is a property asset which can be renamed, transferred and licensed. Finally, when attracting investment funds from international banks, investors or governments, there are often cases in which it would be advantageous to register your trade mark in the respective country you are considering entering the market in.


Intellectual Property

IP Australia Fee Changes from 1 October 2020

IP Australia’s 2019-2020 fee review has resulted in changes to various official fees within the Australian Government Charging Framework. The aim of the changes is to ensure the recovery of fees from the administration of intellectual property rights systems. The changes are effective 1 October 2020.   The key changes are summarised as follows.   Trade marks   Standard Trade mark applications are subject to fee increases depending on the type of application. Applicants filing a new non-pick list application using the preferred filing method will be charged $400 for a standard trade mark application and $550 for series trade mark application, both of which are increased by $70 from the old fees. Non-pick list applications are those with classifications that are not from a collection of pre-approved goods and services created by IP Australia.   A new single fee of $400 for all hearing requests will be introduced. The single fee applies notwithstanding the type of hearing. Each day of the hearing will also attract fees ranging from $400 to $800 per day, depending on how the hearing is conducted (e.g. by written submissions or in-person). This fee will be offset by the hearing request fee.    Patents   The changes to the patent fee structure will be three-tiered. Firstly, new excess claim fees have been introduced for the following categories:   Standard Patents: 21 to 30 claims     $125 Standard Patents: 31+ claims            $250   Secondly, renewal/maintenance fees for patents exceeding 5 years will increase significantly, particularly for extended pharmaceutical patents.    Standard Patent Renewal/Maintenance Fee Old fee New fee 5th Anniversary $300 $315 6th Anniversary $300 $335 7th Anniversary $300 $360 8th Anniversary $300 $390 9th Anniversary $300 $425 10th Anniversary $550 $490 11th Anniversary $550 $585 12th Anniversary $550 $710 13th Anniversary $550 $865 14th Anniversary Renewal $550 $1050 15th Anniversary Renewal $1250 $1280 16th Anniversary Renewal $1250 $1555 17th Anniversary Renewal $1250 $1875 18th Anniversary Renewal $1250 $2240 19th Anniversary Renewal $1250 $2650 Pharmaceutical Patent Renewal/Maintenance Fee Old fee New fee 20th Anniversary $2550 $4000 21st Anniversary $2550 $5000 22nd Anniversary $2550 $6000 23rd Anniversary $2550 $7000 24th Anniversary $2550 $8000   Finally, and on a brighter note, preliminary search & opinion fees will be reduced significantly from $2,200 to $950.   Designs   Both application and renewal fees will increase for registered design applications. A new design application which is not submitted via preferred means will cost applicants $450 (previous fee $350). Subsequent designs within the same application will also attract a new fee.   Preferred Methods   If applicants use filing methods other than IP Australia’s preferred method, higher fees will be attracted. The obvious aim is to incentivise online filing methods for efficiency purposes. It is also to encourage users to make use of trade mark pick lists.   Finally, applicants should expect further changes in relation to awards of cost in opposition and non-use removal proceedings. The changes will be released once relevant stakeholder submissions and additional consultations have been assessed.   A full list of the fee changes can be viewed on IP Australia’s website.    For any enquiries, please contact us at ip@hhlaw.com.au.