IP Australia fees rise from 1 July 2012

In Designs, IP Australia, Patents, Trademarks on 11 May 2012 at 17:40

Following the Australian Federal Budget on Tuesday 8 May 2012, IP Australia has announced a list of changes to fees charged for its products and services.

Most fee changes will take effect from 1 July 2012. New application filing fee charges will increase from 1 October 2012.

Full fees for each type of intellectual property can be found by clicking on the headings below. In summary, the new fees will be as follows (a variety of fees indicates that some filing methods cost more than others):


  • Headstart request:     $120/class
  • TM application:     $200 or $220/class
  • Standard TM registration:     $300/class
  • TM renewal:     $300 or $350/class


  • Application:     $250 or $350/design
  • Examination:     $420
  • Renewal:    $320 or $370


  • provisional application:     $110 or $210
  • standard patent:
    • application:     $370 or $470
    • examination:     $490
    • renewal:     $350 (yrs 4-9), $550 (yrs 10-14), $1,170 (yrs 15-19)
  • innovation patent:
    • application:     $180 or $280
    • examination:     $500
    • renewal:     $160 (yrs 2-4), $270 (yrs 5-7)
  • opposition:     $600

Plant Breeders’ Rights

  • Application:     $345 or $445
  • Examination (single):     $1,610
  • Certificate (PBR):     $345
  • Annual renewal:     $345 or $395

Optus loses FCA appeal in sport broadcast case (27 April)

In Copyright, FCA on 30 April 2012 at 22:49

National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59

Optus has lost an appeal brought by the NRL, AFL and Telstra before the Full bench of the Federal Court of Australia (“FCA”).

The National Rugby League (“NRL”) and the Australian Football League (“AFL”) own copyright in broadcasts of their games. Telstra holds a license to broadcast these games exclusively, including online.

Optus launched a product called TV Now, which allows users of its mobile phone services to select TV programs from an electronic program guide (“EPG”) to be recorded to Optus’ cloud. The phone users can then watch those programs almost instantly, while still recording, or at any time within the next 30 days. In effect, this allows people to watch the program via the Optus recording almost as soon as Telstra has broadcast the sports events.

The plaintiffs claimed Optus was infringing copyright by broadcasting the games. Optus claimed the phone users were recording the games, albeit to Optus’ cloud, and that this activity falls within the Copyright Act 1968 s.111 exception for ‘time shifting’.

Optus prevailed at trial, with Rares J finding the recordings were made by the users of TV Now, not by Optus.

On appeal, Finn, Emmett and Bennett JJ held that Optus could not rely on the s.111 ‘time shifting’ exception as the recordings were made by either Optus, or by Optus and the TV Now user. The court held:

“The maker was Optus or, in the alternative, it was Optus and the subscriber. It is unnecessary for present purposes to express a definitive view as between the two. Optus could be said to be the maker in that the service it offered to, and did, supply a subscriber was to make and to make available to that person a recording of the football match he or she selected.”

“Alternatively Optus and the subscriber could be said to be the maker for Copyright Act purposes as they acted in concert for the purpose of making a recording of the particular broadcast which the subscriber required to be made and of which he or she initiated the automated process by which copies were produced. In other words, they were jointly and severally responsible for the act of copying. That is our preferred view.”

Optus suspended its TV Now service in response to the judgement. It may still seek leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Useful Documents:

NSW Police sued for “Copyright Piracy”: ABC TV

In Copyright, FCA on 30 April 2012 at 21:54

A recent report on ABC TV’s current affairs program The 7.30 Report details a case before the Federal Court of Australia.

The report claims:

  • the NSW Police are being sued by UK software firm Micro Focus.
  • Micro Focus alleges the NSW Police exceeded its license for its ViewNow database software by installing it on too many computers, continuing to use the software after the license expired, and providing copies of the software to other law enforcement agencies.
  • The NSW Department of Corrective Services, NSW Ombudsman’s Office and the Police Integrity Commission settled out of court.
  • In an interview, cybercrime investigator Michael Speck says: “You think about copyright like a hire car agreement. When the agreement runs out you can’t continue to drive the car and you certainly can’t give it to your mates. And that’s what happened here.”
  • In a further twist, the report claims: “Micro Focus plans to launch yet another lawsuit, this time accusing the police of trying to replace the first batch of pirated software with another batch of pirated software which also belongs to Micro Focus.” The NSW Police issued a statement in response, stating: “NSW Police denies these fresh claims in relation to the NetManage Applet and will vigorously contest the matter.”

Further information: