Minutes/Policy Development Committee/IP Laws Amendment Bill Inquiry WG/2014-01-29

Attendance

 * Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer (Chair)
 * Trevor Dadson
 * David Crafti

Current situation

 * Reading through the explanatory memoranda
 * Most of the content is fairly basic.
 * Due date is 7th February.
 * Most of the content seems very positive, a lot of it is just routine amendments.
 * It's important to make sure that the administrative changes aren't concealing anything untoward.
 * For the most part, the patent reform has been promising.

Breakdown of amendments

 * Schedule 1 deals with compulsory licences, which we're in favour of.
 * Schedule 2 seems to mostly be administrative amendments.
 * Schedule 3 gives the Federal Circuit Court the ability to look at plant breeder's rights cases.
 * Schedule 4 deals with Trans-Tasman patent attorneys — seems to just implement an agreement that Australia signed.
 * Schedule 5 is miscellaneous amendments.

Trans-Tasman patent attorney regime

 * Not particularly concerning.
 * Seems to just implement an agreement that we can't get out of.
 * ANZ single economic market hasn't really been a bad thing.
 * Both counties have always been close, economically, culturally and politically.
 * We already have an agreement to streamline the registration of members of occupations, including patent attorneys, across both countries.
 * The explanatory memorandum makes out the case that this is poorly regulated.
 * It looks like an NZ patent attorney wouldn't need to show they were competent under Australian law before working here and vice versa.
 * Imposing standards isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 * Being closely linked on this won't bring the patent systems into line.
 * "This new process will not create a single patent covering both Australia and New Zealand. Each country will grant patents under its own legislation."

Remuneration issue

 * Not totally sure why remuneration must be settled before manufacture in some cases, and not in others:
 * "If the pharmaceutical product is to address a public health crisis in the importing country, then the Australian manufacturer can make and export the pharmaceutical product before the remuneration is determined. For other public non-commercial use of the pharmaceutical product by the importing country, the remuneration must be determined before the Australian manufacturer can make and export the pharmaceutical product."
 * Presumably it's to make sure that the patent holder gets money.
 * It seems unnecessary to split hairs between "urgent" and "not so urgent."
 * Seems to lack criteria for determining whether something is a crisis or not.
 * It might actually be required by TRIPS, and so nothing can be done.
 * We can ask for the rationale to be explained, and standards need clarity, in our submission.

Patent extensions

 * As we support the abolition of pharmaceutical patents, extensions for pharmaceutical patents should be opposed on principle.
 * Drug patents are longer due to approval times.
 * They want to ensure that compulsory licences do not interfere with the extensions, etc.
 * We're going to blanket oppose in the submission.

Summing up

 * Finish reading, start writing.
 * There's no time for another meeting, so just use IRC or email to communicate.
 * Meeting closed.