Reports

No.	Author(s)	Title	Date
01/07	Elizabeth Hall, Chris Dent and Andrew F. Christie	Patent Attorney Privilege in Australia: Rationale, Current Concerns and Avenues for Reform. (375 KB)	December 2007
03/06	Joshua Gans and Richard Hayes	Assessing Australia's Innovative Capacity - 2006 Update (519 KB)	December 2006
02/06	Joshua Gans and Richard Hayes	Assessing Australia's Innovative Capacity - 2005 Update (311 KB)	April 2006
01/06	Cameron Rider, Lillian Hong, Ann O'Connell, Miranda Stewart, Michelle Herring	Taxation Problems in the Commercialisation of Intellectual Property (1.69 MB)	January 2006
03/04	Joshua Gans and Richard Hayes	Assessing Australia's Innovative Capacity in the 21st Century - update. (1.2 MB)	December 2004
02/04	Andrew F Christie and Sarah L Moritz	Australia's Second-Tier Patent System: A Preliminary Review. (920 KB)	December 2004 Revised April 2005
01/04	Dianne Nicol and Jane Nielsen	Patents and Medical Biotechnology: An Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry. (842 KB)	October 2004
	Joshua Gans and Scott Stern	Assessing Australia's Innovative Capacity in the 21st Century. (2.07 MB)	June 2003
	Andrew F. Christie, Stuart D'Aloisio, Katerina L. Gaita, Melanie J. Howlett, Elizabeth M. Webster	Analysis of the Legal Framework for Patent Ownership in Publicly Funded Research Institutions. (674 KB)	March 2003

A Review of Australian Second-Tier Patent Systems

This study presents a review of second-tier patent systems in Australia —the earlier petty patent system and the current innovation patent system. It outlines the developments which led to the introduction of the two systems, as well as their varying objectives. Empirical data on petty, innovation and standard patent use has been analysed. This analysis provides the basis on which an assessment is made as to whether the original objectives of the systems were/are being met. This review is the first of its kind in relation to the innovation patent system.

Patents and Medical Biotechnology: An Empirical Analysis Of Issues Facing The Australian Industry

Centre for Law and Genetics - Occasional Paper No. 6

This study was conducted in order to assess the impact of patents on innovation in the Australian medical biotechnology industry. Surveys were mailed to three industry sectors: research institutions, public and private biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and diagnostic facilities. Forty semi-structured interviews were undertaken with participants in all of these sectors.

One of the main conclusions of this Report is that at present the medical biotechnology industry is enjoying the advantages that the patent system offers in encouraging innovation. Neverthless, options to better regulate the use of patents could also be examined. These options include modification to existing compulsory licensing and government use provisions, the creation of a statutory licensing regime and use of clearing house mechanisms, and further consideration of the role of competition law.

Assessing Australia's Innovative Capacity in the 21st Century UPDATED December 2004

This report by Professor Joshua Gans (Melbourne Business School and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne) and Research Fellow Richard Hayes (Melbourne Business School and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, University of Melbourne), identifies the key factors that determine a nation's capacity for innovation and presents new findings about the drivers of global innovation in advanced nations.

Analysis of the Legal Framework for Patent Ownership in Publicly Funded Research Institutions

Andrew F. Christie, Stuart D'Aloisio, Katerina L. Gaita, Melanie J. Howlett, Elizabeth M. Webster

IPRIA's report to the Department of Education, Science and Training examined the legal framework for patent ownership in publicly funded research institutions in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and in Australia. The report found that experience has shown in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, that the optimal initial owner of a patent for an invention is the research institution in which the invention was created. Research institutions are best placed to implement management structures to identify potentially valuable patents and they are also well positioned to pursue commercialisation of such inventions. The default position should not vest ownership of patents in employee inventors or funding agencies. However, whilst there should not be an automatic devolution of patent rights to employees or funding agencies, research institutions should be allowed the freedom to assign patent rights on a case by case basis where the institution believes that such an assignment would lead to an optimal outcome with respect to commercialisation.

The report recommended that the right to ownership of patents should be coupled with the assumption of responsibility for the effective identification, protection, management and commercialisation of the invention. This approach could be implemented by the adoption of a policy requiring certain federal government funding agencies to make grants to research institutions conditional upon the acceptance of the responsibilities recommended above. In particular, it could be implemented through an expansion of the approach already operating in Australia via the National Principles and the Interim Guidelines. This "expanded National Principles approach" would enlarge the content of the responsibilities currently applied to research institutions, as well as the range of funding agencies applying those responsibilities.

Click here to view the Minister's press release.

Click here to view the full report.