Insight,

Repeal of the IP exemption: What does this mean for you?

AU | EN
Current site :    AU   |   EN
Australia
Belgium
China
China Hong Kong SAR
Germany
Italy
Japan
Singapore
Spain
UAE
United Kingdom
United States
Global

This article was written by Lisa Huett and Stephanie Swan.

Businesses who license their intellectual property (IP) rights need to act now and review their licensing and assignment arrangements to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA).  Licensees should also reconsider the licensing and assignment agreements they've entered into, as certain restrictions may no longer be lawful.                           

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill (Bill), which adopts the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and the Competition Policy Review and repeals the longstanding IP exemption found in section 51(3) of the CCA, passed both Houses on 18 February 2019.

The repeal of section 51(3) of the CCA will take effect in six months, on 13 September 2019.  Importantly, existing arrangements will not be grandfathered, but this delayed commencement gives your business time to review its existing arrangements to ensure they now comply with the competition provisions of the CCA.

How does the current IP exemption work?

Part IV of the CCA sets out a range of prohibited behaviours and practices that are anti-competitive. 

Section 51(3) of the CCA currently contains an exemption to some of the key restrictive trade practices, and allows the holders of IP rights to impose conditions on the licensing or assignment of their IP rights (such as patents, registered designs, copyright or eligible circuit layout rights).  In theory, this means that IP owners can more freely dictate the manner in which their IP is commercialised, for example through territorial restrictions and the like.

What's changing?

The removal of this exemption means that commercial arrangements concerning IP rights will be subject to competition laws in the same way as any other commercial arrangement.  This change may therefore have a significant impact on the lawfulness of existing IP licensing and assignment arrangements.

The amendment applies to existing and future licences, assignments and arrangements.

What are the consequences?

Given that the ACCC made submissions to the Productivity Commission's Inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements in Australia that "there is no strong policy rationale that supports the treatment of IP rights differently from the way other property rights are dealt with under the CCA", the ACCC is likely to take an interest in this development.  The ACCC also supported the PC's recommendations that the ACCC produce guidelines on the application of the CCA to IP, and be given a reporting and monitoring role to detect 'pay-for-delay' settlements in the pharmaceutical sector. 

Combatting cartel conduct causing detriment in Australia is also an enduring priority for the ACCC, evidenced by its current vigorous enforcement of the criminal cartel laws.

The consequences for corporations and individuals found guilty of cartel conduct are severe.  A court may make a range of orders, including:

  • imposing criminal and civil penalties (including imprisonment for individuals);
  • injunctions;
  • disqualifying a person from managing corporations; and/or
  • community service orders,

and the reputational harm that will likely result, may be lasting.

What do you need to do?

We see this as a 4-step process to ensure your business is ready for the change.  We can assist with any or all of these stages, and tailor our offering to your business's needs.

View full-size image

Download the flyer outlining the 4-step process and what the repeal means for you.

Stage 1

Scoping

2-4 weeks Identify and gather all your commercial contracts and arrangements concerning IP rights.

Stage 2

Review

4-6 weeks Carefully consider each of these commercial contracts and arrangements to identify whether they rely on the IP exemption or any other exemption in the CCA, and whether there are any cartel conduct risks.

Some examples of potentially anti-competitive provisions include clauses that create quantity, price or geographical restrictions, exclusive cross-licensing arrangements and settlement agreements.

Stage 3

Strategy

~2-4 weeks Consider how you want to deal with any contracts and arrangements that may pose a risk. Do you want to vary the agreement? Do you want to continue to impose conditions on the licensing or assignment of your IP rights? These are just some of the questions you'll need to ask.

Stage 4

Implementation

~3 months Depending on the strategy that you've decided to adopt, you may need to engage in negotiations and make some drafting changes to your contracts and arrangements concerning IP rights.

How can we help?

KWM is at the forefront of this shift in the market and what it means for you. We can provide you with the support you need. If you have any questions about this provision and how the change may impact you, please get in touch to discuss how we can help.

LATEST THINKING
Insight
On 2 August 2022, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 was passed (Aged Care Bill), introducing important regulatory changes to Australia’s aged care sector. The Bill makes numerous legislative amendments, including to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (Aged Care Act) and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (Cth) (Transitional Provisions Act), and responds to various recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) Final Report (Report). The Report identified the provision of substandard aged care services and perceived systemic failures in the aged care sector.[1]

08 August 2022

Insight
The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Insight
Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022