• Latest News & Articles

IP Australia Proposes Wide‑Ranging Reforms to Streamline and Modernise the IP System

IP Australia has released a suite of proposed amendments aimed at simplifying intellectual property (IP) regulation, reducing administrative burdens, and aligning Australia’s IP framework with key overseas jurisdictions. The Consultation document can be found here.

The consultation documents and proposed reforms span patents, trade marks, designs, plant breeder’s rights (PBRs), and the regulation of IP attorneys. The document covers both “proposals for reform”, which appear likely to be progressed, and “issues for further investigation”, which at this stage are policy issues from which proposals for reform may be created based on feedback. In both cases, more detail would be desirable, and we remain cautious as to the practical effect of many of the proposed changes.

The consultation period is fairly short, open until 2 April 2026. Let us know if you would like our guidance or assistance with making a submission on the future of Australia’s IP landscape.

A Unified Push for Simplicity and Efficiency

The overarching theme of the proposed reforms is greater efficiency, both for businesses navigating the IP system and for IP Australia in administering it. By reducing compliance costs, shortening timelines, and introducing flexible and technology‑enabled processes, the reforms seek to modernise Australia’s IP framework and in some ways bring it closer to the practices of other jurisdictions.

Below is an overview of the key proposals across each IP right.

1. Patents

Response‑Based Examination

IP Australia proposes replacing the current 12‑month acceptance deadline with short, fixed response deadlines (e.g., two months) and a cap on the number of responses allowed before a rejection procedure commences. This would curb delays, reduce pendency, and bring Australia closer to European and UK examination practices.

In our view, while this may be a good idea in principle, the shorter response deadlines must be adequate to allow communication through multiple channels to be achieved. In particular, a two month response deadline would appear to be far too short, and the capped number of responses requires greater elaboration.

Rights of Partial Exclusive Licensees

The reforms would expand the definition of “exclusive licensee” to include those holding exclusive rights over only part of the patent (e.g., the exclusive right to sell but not manufacture, or a geographically-limited exclusivity). In some ways, this change may reflect commercial realities and bring Australia into alignment with jurisdictions where partial exclusive licensees already hold standing to sue. However, given the situation is slightly unorthodox, the practicalities of this arrangement, and the bounds of what a partial exclusive licensee may assert will require careful consideration and guidance.

Streamlined Extensions of Term Oppositions

Section 75 oppositions to pharmaceutical extensions of term would be reclassified as procedural rather than substantive, allowing more flexible and proportionate evidentiary requirements and shorter opposition timelines.

Bearing in mind that this is a high stakes issue for both originators and generics, provided that there is scope of discretionary flexibility for more complex situations where more detailed evidence is needed, this approach may be a sensible change.

Virtual Marking of Patented Products

The proposed reforms would allow patentees to mark products virtually using a QR code, URL, or barcode, rather than physically updating product moulds or packaging.

This simplifies ongoing compliance and reduces cost associated with updating these markings on physical products and puts Australian practice into line with other jurisdictions. This would seem to be a sensible change in the 21^st century, particularly benefiting SMEs.

Simplifying Extensions of Time

IP Australia is seeking feedback on removing declaration requirements for initial short extensions of time and imposing clearer limits on when lapsed patents can be revived — for example, restricting late extension requests to within three months of the missed deadline.

While the simplified initial short extension of time makes sense and is consistent with trade marks practice, the proposal to limit the time within which rights can be restored or reinstated would mark a significant change to the ability of rightsholders to correct mistakes. The intention, to protect those who may exploit a patent believing it has lapsed, can likely be addressed in other ways which do not deprive rightsholders of recourse for inadvertently lapsed rights, such as the allowance already made to those who exploit an invention believing it has lapsed/ceased.

Managing Prolonged Pendency

IP Australia consider that there is an issue with prolonged pendency, particularly following a request for examination and invite feedback on this.

Any restrictions on the ability of applicants to file divisional applications should be carefully considered as there are many legitimate reasons (other than unity objections) for which divisional applications is required. Any mechanism which enables third parties to “indicate their interest in a particular patent application being resolved quickly” must be carefully controlled to avoid it being used improperly.

2. Trade Marks

Response‑Based Examination for Trade Marks

Similar to patents, the reforms propose replacing the current 15‑month acceptance period with short, fixed deadlines for each examination report, alongside a cap on permissible responses to reduce the number of dormant applications sitting on the register.

However, this will place some pressure on applicants who must action responses more quickly. This may be difficult when coordinating responses in a number of jurisdictions, particularly as other jurisdictions can take significantly longer for first examination. Before this change is endorsed, clarity over the length of the deadline and number of responses that will be allowed is essential. Two months may not be sufficient.

Correcting Honest Ownership Mistakes

Under the proposed reforms, the Registrar would gain power to correct ownership errors both before and after registration with some safeguards including advertisement and opportunities for affected parties to be heard. This addresses significant risks for self‑filers and SMEs who may otherwise lose rights due to technical filing errors.

Courts will also be given a clear discretion to refuse to cancel a mark where a genuine mistake in ownership occurred.

This will reduce the likelihood of a trade mark registration being voided because of a technical error in ownership, but will make reliance on the information in the register less certain. For example, if you are investigating whether a mark has been used and find no use by the registered owner, however what appears to be an unrelated third party is using the mark. Would a potential situation of non-use be able to be cured by fixing a technical ownership error?

Costs in Oppositions

The Registrar would be able to award costs above the scheduled amounts in cases involving unreasonable conduct.

This seems sensible. It should help deter unhelpful conduct in opposition proceedings and bring the trade mark opposition costs in line with costs that can be awarded in patent and design oppositions.

Finalising Stalled Oppositions

The Registrar would have power to dismiss or finalise oppositions if neither party requests a hearing or written decision within 3 months of being invited to do so.

This also seems sensible to keep opposition proceedings moving to a resolution and prevent disputes hanging in limbo.

Removing Certificates of Verification

Certificates of verification for translations would no longer be required unless the Registrar doubts their accuracy, reducing administrative steps for applicants.

This will reduce the administrative burden for applicant’s and make IP Australia’s position consistent across patents, trade marks, and designs. It seems like a pragmatic change.

Updating Madrid Protocol, Madrid Regulations and Nice Agreement references

This will reduce the burden of updating the legislation each time an amendment or new version of these protocols, regulations or agreements is made and it seems like a sensible change.

3. Designs

For designs, the proposals focus on harmonising processes with patents and trade marks to reduce unnecessary complexity.

Streamlining Multi‑Design Applications

Design applications covering more than one design offer cost and filing efficiencies but suffer from procedural challenges, such as one design delaying others or difficulty separating designs at registration stage. IP Australia is seeking feedback on how to streamline treatment of multi‑design filings to preserve their benefits while reducing procedural friction.

Increased flexibility for filing excluded designs

At present, Section 23 of the Designs Act requires an applicant to amend their initial application before filing an excluded design application and to do so within a prescribed regulatory period. In order to make this work in practice, IP Australia have applied the requirements flexibly, but the proposal suggests an amendment to the Designs Act to clarify that the order of filing the amendment request and the excluded design application does not matter, provided both occur before the initial application lapses or is withdrawn. This is a sensible proposal which accords with practice and will enhance the experience and efficiency of both applicants and IP Australia.

Virtual Marking

As with patents as discussed above, virtual marking would be introduced for registered designs.

Removing Translation Verification Requirements

Certificates of verification for translated documents would be removed unless accuracy is questioned, aligning designs with proposed trade mark practice.

4. Plant Breeder’s Rights (PBRs)

Clarifying the Exhaustion Doctrine

There is existing uncertainty around the extent to which PBR rights are exhausted after the first sale of propagating material. IP Australia is seeking feedback on whether legislative clarification is needed to align the PBR framework with modern commercial practices and with the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Harvested Material That Is Also Propagating Material

Where harvested material (such as grain) is also capable of propagation, the current law is unclear. The consultation asks whether the definition of “propagating material” should be expanded to include harvested material which is also propagating material.

Grace Period for Renewal Fees

A six‑month, non‑extendable grace period for late payment of PBR renewal fees is proposed, accompanied by a monthly late fee. This would align PBR renewals with patents, trade marks, and designs.

Herbarium Specimen Deposits

For varieties indigenous to Australia, herbarium specimen deposits would become optional rather than mandatory.

Virtual Marking for PBRs

As with patents and designs, virtual marking would be introduced.

5. IP Attorneys and Professional Users

Closing the Re‑registration Loophole

A significant professional conduct reform would enable disciplinary investigation of deregistered attorneys and prevent them from avoiding complaints by voluntarily deregistering and later re‑registering without consequence.

Modernising Office Attendance Requirements

Patent attorneys would no longer be required to maintain physical attendance at their offices; remote supervision and attendance would suffice. This change is stated to reflect modern professional practice and support flexible working arrangements, however its effects should be carefully considered in light of recent instances of unlicensed and/or fraudulent agents and consumer trust.

Conclusion

IP Australia’s proposed reforms largely reflect an effort to streamline and harmonise Australia’s IP system where appropriate while aligning local processes with international practice and local commercial realities.

Generally speaking, stakeholders across all sectors, from large corporations to small businesses, universities, and IP professionals stand to benefit from a more flexible, consistent, and efficient regulatory framework. However, in some instances, for example regarding the interim response deadline proposal, more detail regarding the specifics of the adjusted regime would be useful.

We reiterate, the consultation period is open until 2 April 2026. Contact us if you would like our guidance or assistance with making a submission, or with your views or questions for IP Australia.

March 2026

To avoid missing out on important updates from the Henry Hughes IP team, subscribe to our quarterly newsletter here.