Check Your Vote All bills

Parliament bill

Patents Amendment Bill

Royal assent · Introduced by Hon Cameron Brewer · National Party

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:54
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:54
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its third reading by voice vote; no party or individual counts were recorded. According to the explanatory material, old transitional rules let divisional applications linked to pre-2013 patents be assessed under less strict 1953 standards, potentially allowing patents for obvious variations and leaving other businesses to challenge them at cost. The bill aims to apply broadly the same patent-quality tests to these later divisional applications as apply under the 2013 regime. Applicants filing affected divisional applications must satisfy the Commissioner that their claimed invention is novel, inventive, and supported by the specification; those tests also apply in opposition, re-examination, and revocation processes.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

May 28, 2026
Third reading: Passed Voice vote

Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.

View the vote in Hansard

Earlier votes (1)

May 28, 2026

Second reading: Passed Voice vote

Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

For New Zealand businesses, applying the 2013 Act’s stricter inventive-step criteria to new legacy divisional applications will prevent undeserving patents, reducing opposition costs and legal uncertainty.

For local manufacturers and sellers, refusing meritless inventions at examination rather than requiring third-party opposition will free them to sell products without infringement risk and contribute to economic growth.

For New Zealand’s intellectual-property system, aligning the legacy divisional pathway with current standards will make patent assessment fairer and more predictable for inventors, producers, and businesses.

Arguments against

For applicants with patents filed under the 1953 Act, applying 2013 Act requirements to later divisional applications may be unfair because they applied under the earlier regime’s rules.

Nuance and qualifications

The bill’s practical effect is limited to a small group of divisional applications connected to pre-2013 parent applications, since post-2013 parent applications already fall under the newer regime.

For the innovation system, stronger patent rules may have limited long-term benefit if reductions in foundational science investment diminish the research that produces future inventions and patents.

Bill text

Patents Amendment Bill

Version published May 22, 2025 00:00.

Patents Amendment Bill EXPLANATORY NOTE GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT The key purpose of this Bill is to amend the Patents Act 2013 (the 2013 Act ) to apply stricter criteria for the grant of divisional applications filed under the Patents Act 1953 (the 1953 Act ). Currently, applications that were filed before the 2013 Act came into force, and any subsequent applications relating to them (known as divisional applications), fall to be considered under the 1953 Act. This is an issue because the 1953 Act criteria for examining patent applications is of a lower standard than the 2013 Act and can result in unmeritorious inventions being patented. Third parties (such as other businesses) can later oppose the grant of these patents through a review process or apply to have the patents revoked. However, this is costly and time-consuming for businesses, with no guarantee of success. The Bill will adjust the 2013 Act so that 1953 Act applications will be examined in broadly the same way as 2013 Act applications. This will avoid the likelihood of a third party having to oppose the grant of a patent. This will only apply to 1953 Act divisional applications that are filed after the Bill comes into…
Read full bill text
Patents Amendment Bill EXPLANATORY NOTE GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT The key purpose of this Bill is to amend the Patents Act 2013 (the 2013 Act ) to apply stricter criteria for the grant of divisional applications filed under the Patents Act 1953 (the 1953 Act ). Currently, applications that were filed before the 2013 Act came into force, and any subsequent applications relating to them (known as divisional applications), fall to be considered under the 1953 Act. This is an issue because the 1953 Act criteria for examining patent applications is of a lower standard than the 2013 Act and can result in unmeritorious inventions being patented. Third parties (such as other businesses) can later oppose the grant of these patents through a review process or apply to have the patents revoked. However, this is costly and time-consuming for businesses, with no guarantee of success. The Bill will adjust the 2013 Act so that 1953 Act applications will be examined in broadly the same way as 2013 Act applications. This will avoid the likelihood of a third party having to oppose the grant of a patent. This will only apply to 1953 Act divisional applications that are filed after the Bill comes into force. The Bill achieves this by providing that these 1953 Act divisional applications are only accepted for grant if the Commissioner of Patents is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the invention claimed in the application meets the novelty, inventive step, and support requirements of the 2013 Act. The above criteria will also apply to any opposition, revocation, and re-examination proceedings concerning these 1953 Act divisional applications. DEPARTMENTAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment is required to prepare a disclosure statement to assist with the scrutiny of this Bill. The disclosure statement provides access to information about the policy development of the Bill and identifies any significant or unusual legislative features of the Bill. A copy of the statement can be found at http://legislation.govt.nz/disclosure.aspx?type=bill&subtype=government&year=2025&no=154 REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment produced a regulatory impact statement on 14 February 2020 to help inform the main policy decisions taken by the Government relating to the contents of this Bill. A copy of this regulatory impact statement can be found at— https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/30694-impact-summary-intellectual-property-laws-amendment-bill https://www.regulation.govt.nz/our-work/regulatory-impact-statements/ CLAUSE BY CLAUSE ANALYSIS Clause 1 states the Title of the Bill. Clause 2 states that the Bill comes into force on the day after Royal assent. Clause 3 states that the Bill amends the 2013 Act. The amendments relate to transitional provisions for divisional applications. Under both the 1953 Act and the 2013 Act, at any time before a patent application is accepted or refused, the applicant can create a divisional application. This is done by dividing the original application into 1 or more further applications seeking patent protection for any invention described in the original application. The original application is referred to as the parent application. Each subsequent application is known as a divisional application. The transitional provisions under the 2013 Act allow a divisional application under the 1953 Act to be kept pending for up to 20 years after the 2013 Act entered into force. The criteria for granting a patent under the 1953 Act are less strict than the criteria required by the 2013 Act. This means that patents may be granted under the 1953 Act for inventions that are merely obvious variations on what already exists. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING PROVISIONS Clause 4 amends section 146, which sets out a defence to a patent infringement claim, relating to prior use of the invention. Section 146 only applies to a patent if the application was made on or after 13 September 2014 and it was not a divisional application treated as made under the 1953 Act. The amendment adds a reference to new section 258A , which also describes a type of divisional application treated as made under the 1953 Act. The amendment means that section 146 will continue to not apply to any patent resulting from a divisional application treated as made under the 1953 Act. Clause 5 amends section 254, which contains the transitional provisions for patents granted under the 1953 Act. The amendments enable some grounds for re-examination or revocation of a patent granted under the 2013 Act to also apply to a patent granted under the 1953 Act in respect of a divisional application, if that application is filed on or after the date on which this Bill comes into force and is given a date before 13 September 2014. Those grounds align with the new requirements in new section 258A that relate, in respect of such a divisional application, to the acceptance of the complete specification and the grounds on which a person may oppose the grant of a patent. Clause 6 amends section 258, which contains the transitional provisions for divisional applications made on or after 13 September 2014 but dated earlier. Section 258 provides that these divisional applications are treated as patent applications made under the 1953 Act and section 255 applies to them. The amendments restrict this treatment to divisional applications that are filed before the date on which this Bill comes into force. New section 258A deals with the treatment of divisional applications filed on or after that date. NEW TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS FILED AFTER COMMENCEMENT Clause 7 inserts new section 258A , which contains new transitional provisions for certain divisional applications made in respect of a parent application to which the 1953 Act applies. The new transitional provisions apply to divisional applications filed on or after the date on which this Bill comes into force but dated before 13 September 2014. These divisional applications continue to be treated as patent applications made under the 1953 Act with some exceptions related to the acceptance of a complete specification, the grounds for opposing the grant of a patent, and the procedure the Commissioner must follow if a grant is opposed. The criteria for acceptance of a complete specification and the grounds for opposing the grant of a patent will include whether— the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, is novel; and the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, involves an inventive step; and any claim of the complete specification is supported by the matter disclosed in the complete specification. If a person opposes the grant of a patent, the procedure will be that the Commissioner— must give the applicant and opponent an opportunity to be heard; and must consider whether any grounds relied on by the opponent are established on the balance of probabilities; and may consider whether the invention is novel, even if that ground is not relied on by the opponent; and must decide and deal with the case in the prescribed manner. The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Patents Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Patents Act 2013. 4 Section 146 amended (No infringement for prior use of invention) In section 146(5)(a), replace section 258 with sections 258 and 258A . 5 Section 254 amended (Transitional provision for patents granted under Patents Act 1953) In section 254(2)(d), after (rather than the grounds in section 114 of this Act) , insert unless subsection (4) applies . In section 254(2)(e), after (rather than the grounds in section 114 of this Act) , insert unless subsection (5) applies . After section 254(2), insert: 3 Subsections (4) and (5) apply to a patent granted in respect of a fresh patent application to which section 258A applies. 4 On a re-examination of the patent application and the complete specification under section 95, the grounds that a person may specify in a request for re-examination, and that the Commissioner may consider and report on, are 1 or more of the following grounds: a a ground in section 41(1)(b) to (d), (g), (h), or (j) to (m) of the Patents Act 1953: b that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base is not novel: c that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base does not involve an inventive step: d that the scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly defined or that any claim of the complete specification is not supported by the matter disclosed in the specification. 5 The Commissioner or the court may revoke the patent under this Act only on 1 or more of the following grounds, and those grounds are available as grounds of defence in a proceeding for the infringement of the patent: a a ground in section 41(1)(b) to (d), (g), (h), (j) to (m), or (3) of the Patents Act 1953: b that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base is not novel: c that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base does not involve an inventive step: d that the scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly defined or that any claim of the complete specification is not supported by the matter disclosed in the specification. 6 In subsections (4) and (5) , novel , inventive step , and prior art base have the meanings set out in sections 6 to 8 of this Act. 6 Section 258 amended (Patents Act 1953 applies to divisional applications dated before commencement) In the heading to section 258, replace divisional applications with certain divisional applications . Replace section 258(1) with: 1 This section applies to a fresh patent application (and any complete specification that is filed at the same time) if— a the fresh patent application is made for any part of the subject matter of a patent application to which the Patents Act 1953 applies under section 255 or 259; and b the fresh patent application is made on or after 13 September 2014; and c the date on which the fresh patent application is actually filed is before the date on which the Patents Amendment Act 2025 comes into force; and d the fresh patent application is given a date before 13 September 2014. 7 New section 258A inserted (Transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after Patents Amendment Act 2025 comes into force) After section 258, insert: 258A Transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after Patents Amendment Act 2025 comes into force 1 This section applies to a fresh patent application (and any complete specification that is filed at the same time) if— a the fresh patent application is made for any part of the subject matter of a patent application to which the Patents Act 1953 applies under section 255 or 259; and b the date on which the fresh patent application is actually filed is on or after the date on which the Patents Amendment Act 2025 comes into force; and c the fresh patent application is given a date before 13 September 2014. 2 The fresh patent application must be treated as a patent application made under the Patents Act 1953 (and section 255 applies to it) and the complete specification must be treated as having been filed on the date given to the fresh patent application. 3 However,— a before accepting a complete specification under section 20 of the Patents Act 1953, the Commissioner must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that— i the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base is novel; and ii the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base involves an inventive step; and iii the claim or claims of the complete specification are supported by the matter disclosed in the specification (rather than being fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification as required by section 10(4) of the Patents Act 1953); and b sections 13 and 14 of the Patents Act 1953 do not apply; and c a person may oppose the grant of a patent by a notice given under section 21 of the Patents Act 1953, but only on 1 or more of the following grounds: i a ground specified in section 21(1)(a), or (f) to (k) of the Patents Act 1953: ii that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base is not novel (rather than the grounds in section 21(1)(b) and (c) of the Patents Act 1953): iii that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base does not involve an inventive step (rather than the ground in section 21(1)(e) of the Patents Act 1953): iv that the claim or claims of the complete specification are not supported by the matter disclosed in the specification; and d if a person gives a notice under section 21 of the Patents Act 1953, the following apply (rather than section 21(3) of the Patents Act 1953): i the Commissioner must give the applicant and the opponent a reasonable opportunity to be heard before deciding the case; and ii the Commissioner must consider whether any ground set out in paragraph (c) that is relied upon by the opponent is established on the balance of probabilities; and iii the Commissioner may also consider whether the ground set out in paragraph (c)(ii) is established on the balance of probabilities, even if it is not relied upon by the opponent; and iv the Commissioner must otherwise decide and deal with the case in the prescribed manner. 4 In this section, novel , inventive step , and prior art base have the meanings set out in sections 6 to 8 of this Act.

Hansard

May 28, 2026

Patents Amendment Bill — Committee of the whole House · Full day report

Committee of the whole House Part 2 New transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after commencement CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 7, “New transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after commencement”. The question is that Part 2 stand part. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:56): Mr Chair, thank you. This is a very short part. Again, I’m interested in the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs explaining the legal mechanism—what these words in the bill are doing. I’m going to page 3 of the explanatory note, it’s talking about transitional provisions for these divisional applications that will be filed after this bill comes into force but are dated before 13 September 2014. These divisional applications continue to be treated as patent applications made under that old 1953 Act, with some exceptions; you can see what the exceptions are in the drafting. The grounds for opposing the grant of a patent and the procedure the commissioner must follow if a grant is opposed to it—so my question here is: what is the point, here, of allowing these to still be treated as if they were under the…
Read full Hansard debate
Committee of the whole House Part 2 New transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after commencement CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 7, “New transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after commencement”. The question is that Part 2 stand part. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:56): Mr Chair, thank you. This is a very short part. Again, I’m interested in the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs explaining the legal mechanism—what these words in the bill are doing. I’m going to page 3 of the explanatory note, it’s talking about transitional provisions for these divisional applications that will be filed after this bill comes into force but are dated before 13 September 2014. These divisional applications continue to be treated as patent applications made under that old 1953 Act, with some exceptions; you can see what the exceptions are in the drafting. The grounds for opposing the grant of a patent and the procedure the commissioner must follow if a grant is opposed to it—so my question here is: what is the point, here, of allowing these to still be treated as if they were under the 1953 Act? Are all the bits and pieces that follow, that are in the drafting, strong enough to make it a legal fiction that it is under the 1953 Act, really it’s being treated as if it’s under the 2013, Act—and is that the mechanism here; is that what’s happening? CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (20:57): Thank you, Mr Chair, and tēnei anō te mihi ki te Minita e noho ana i tēnei pō [I acknowledge once again the Minister, here in this session tonight]. In my contribution earlier, I talked about mātauranga Māori. I want to ask how in these transitions, applications which include mātauranga Māori, Māori intellectual property, will be managed—the transition of these? Has the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, or anyone, consulted with iwi or Māori business or Māori research institutes about how the impacts of these transitional changes will be managed; if so, who, and what concerns were raised, and how will those be managed? Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (20:58): I will talk to my officials about the level of consultation that the member raises. This Part 2 is very much the operative part of the bill. The Hon Rachel Brooking was asking these as she read them out: “Are they strong enough?” The short answer is yes. The explanatory note, as she alluded to for Part 2, page 3, takes the reader through the new transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after commencement. The advice that I have here for the new transitional provisions for the 1953 divisional applications after commencement are replicated in the official advice I have. What she has, I have. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (20:59): Exactly. I’ve asked a very specific question. Mātauranga Māori is going to be a major implication in this. We know that, for example, commercially, it’s quite difficult sometimes to quantify the commercial value, but it’s definitely going to be an issue when we’re considering patents. I’ve asked very specifically how that will be managed in this transition phase. Carl Bates: Mr Chair. Hon Member: Mr Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Mr Chair, I would like an answer to that question, and I don’t either member standing up opposite can answer it. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (21:00): Oh, I’d back both of them, but I am seeking some advice to the member. If it’s not given within this time, the officials will no doubt be available for a few minutes at the conclusion of this to give that advice, but we are seeking it. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (21:00): The place for advice to be put on the record, on Hansard, is here, and so if the officials have advice around Cushla Tangaere-Manuel’s question around mātauranga Māori, this is the place to do it. It’s a really important question and one that hasn’t come up a lot in this debate. Now, I can accept, and certainly for me, it’s not a question that I’d be able to answer off the cuff, and I appreciate the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs needs to take advice on this, but in this situation, I’m very happy to pause for officials to provide that advice—but’s it’s not appropriate for us to conclude this debate whilst officials are preparing advice to give to the Minister so that he can stand up in the House of Representatives and give an appropriate and fulsome answer on an important question. If he didn’t understand that question, or if officials need further detail of that question, I’m sure my colleague will be more than happy to assist. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Likewise, if the Minister did want to take advice, we can—or they can give an answer to satisfy the committee. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (21:02): I can sense we’re drawing to an end here, possibly, on Part 2, because it is the operative part of the bill, and the advice that the members have sought is the advice that I have and that they have in the five-page bill, and so that’s what it’s worth. But I suppose I’d ask the member to just reiterate the advice she’s seeking and then let’s get the official response and then let’s get it on the record. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (21:02): Happily, Mr Chair. As the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has acknowledged, this is the operational part of the bill. I’m asking specifically: mātauranga Māori, when it comes to patents, especially as we encourage innovation and the commercialisation and the risks around that of mātauranga Māori and protecting that, is going to be a key part of operationalising this bill. What I’m seeking to understand is: what advice have they got about managing that? Who have they spoken to? What, if any concerns— Carl Bates: Out of scope. Dr Hamish Campbell: This is closing a loophole. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: I love how you guys are interjecting when the Minister’s still seeking advice on this. You guys are not helping. The Minister’s paying respect to this very important issue and so interjections are not appropriate because otherwise you’d be in that seat. What I’m asking is what advice has been sought, from whom, what solutions or issues have they raised, and how will mātauranga Māori be protected as we transition into operationalising this bill? CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): As a way through this impasse, Minister, if you would like to seek advice, or if there is none available, state that for the record now. I think that will be quite important given this is what will allow us to move on from here. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (21:03): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll answer the question as best as officials can give it to me. I was not part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee process, but that may have been canvassed in the process. It may have been canvassed by the Labour Government in Cabinet committee in 2020, so I’m sure that it’s been traversed even in the broader sense, but let me see if we’ve got some advice ready to go. I’ll make sure I can read it first and then hopefully we can move on. [Confers with officials] It’s not patentable? OK. Mātauranga is not patentable, but the direct consultation has not happened in the scope of this bill. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, I heard that—sorry, we’ll need to— Hon CAMERON BREWER: Sorry, wasn’t I microphoned? What the member was asking for—and apologies for my pronunciation—mātauranga Māori is not patentable is the advice I’m getting. It is not an invention. It would be good to be able to read this writing, but the advice is that it’s well outside the scope, and the consultation that she is asking for has not happened at the level that she has requested. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (21:05): I move, That debate on this question now close. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 258A(1)(a), inserting “as applicable”, is out of order as being of no legislative effect. The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 258A(1)(b), replacing “on or after” with “after”, be agreed to. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 258A(1)(c), replacing “before 13 September 2014” with “before the commencement of the Patents Act 2013”, be agreed to. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting new section 258A(1)(d) reading “The parent application remains pending.” be agreed to. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Arena Williams’ five tabled amendments to clause 7, new section 258A(4) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Part 2 agreed to.

Documents and supporting material