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: PassedVoice vote
Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.
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 innovators and firms, dependable patent protection enables commercialisation and company growth by protecting products and services from copying.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Third Reading Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (21:10): I move, That the Patents Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I’ve already thanked the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—EDSI as it’s affectionately known as—for their work on the bill today, this evening, and in previous weeks and months; and to many others involved in this for a number of years, as committee of the whole House revealed. I also want to acknowledge those who submitted on the bill, and those who have an interest in patents, in science, and in inventions; all great stuff that improves our lives. Patents are important for innovation because they incentivise inventors to develop new technologies and solutions while protecting their intellectual property. However, some patents, the pending patents that I mentioned earlier, can create barriers to entry for competition and limit consumers choice, especially when the invention is undeserved. This bill will allow inventions without merit to be refused more quickly at the examination stage. I’ll give that to you again: this bill—because this is the crux of it—will allow inventions without merit to be refused more q…
Read full Hansard debate
Third Reading
Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (21:10): I move, That the Patents Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
I’ve already thanked the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—EDSI as it’s affectionately known as—for their work on the bill today, this evening, and in previous weeks and months; and to many others involved in this for a number of years, as committee of the whole House revealed. I also want to acknowledge those who submitted on the bill, and those who have an interest in patents, in science, and in inventions; all great stuff that improves our lives.
Patents are important for innovation because they incentivise inventors to develop new technologies and solutions while protecting their intellectual property. However, some patents, the pending patents that I mentioned earlier, can create barriers to entry for competition and limit consumers choice, especially when the invention is undeserved. This bill will allow inventions without merit to be refused more quickly at the examination stage. I’ll give that to you again: this bill—because this is the crux of it—will allow inventions without merit to be refused more quickly at the examination stage rather than third parties having to expend unnecessary time and resources to oppose those patents for such inventions being granted.
By ensuring that undeserving inventions are not patented, local businesses will have the freedom to manufacture and sell products without legal risk of infringement, and, in turn, this will contribute to economic growth. This is a small but important change for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (21:12): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look there is a mischief here and I thank the officials, who are here on a Saturday night, for nodding their heads vigorously and providing the Minister with some examples—the example of the feather duster. The point there is that the 1953 Act is very loose. It’s very easy to get something protected under the 1953 Act, and the 2013 Act is more appropriate. It has, what would be regarded internationally, the appropriate standards for that intellectual property protection, that comes in the form of a patent. We know that because this 1953 test is so loose, the problem has been that not only does it apply to old things, old inventions that would have been done before 2013 when the new Act came in, but also there’s a route to get in there—if it’s related in some way, if it’s a divisional application, you can have this lower test, and that ends up with problems because people can patent something which shouldn’t be patented.
What that means in the real world is that we have New Zealand companies where they have Australian competitors and they seek out these divisional applications under that 1953 test, and then, there are some ways to get around it, but my understanding is that the New Zealand companies have to then take them to court. And that’s a very expensive and inefficient process. And hat this legislation—that has being talked about by both Governments for some time—is going to fix that problem, so that only things that deserve to be patented are patented, and there’s not this sort of back-door route in through a connection to an old patient named under the 1953 Act.
That’s good that we’re passing this law. We’ve supported the law. It would have been useful to have some more helpful explanations from the Minister in the committee stage, but I’m very respectful of the advisers who were providing some notes to him. I thank everybody who’s worked on this bill, and we commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour say aye—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No one took a call.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Willis was on his feet—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: He stood up after I started voting.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’ve got to take objection to that, Madam Speaker. He was clearly seeking the call. You have in front of you—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: He didn’t seek the call!
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You have in front of you a speaking order. You know which party is next most likely to take the call.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I was watching.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: He took his feet and with it—he’s not expected to be Usain Bolt, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Webb—Hon Dr Duncan Webb. It’s not actually rocket science, in this House, that people need to stand up and call.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, quite frankly, you didn’t give him a chance, and you leaped to the vote.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: He wasn’t on his feet when we started voting. He was not on his feet when I started voting. I looked round the House—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The pause between the last speaker and you going to the vote was infinitesimal.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nobody was on their feet when I started voting.
Scott Willis: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’ve made my point very clear. So I don’t want anyone trifling with the House. I’ll take a call from Scott Willis.
Scott Willis: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not saying that. You said, “point of order”; I’m taking your point of order.
Scott Willis: Madam Speaker, you asserted that I was not on my feet when you started the vote.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I am. And I’m going to—
Scott Willis: I was on my feet when you started the vote.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you weren’t. I started taking the vote, and I’m going to continue taking the vote.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is adjourned and it will resume on Tuesday, 23 June 2026. Thank you.
The House adjourned at 9.20 p.m. (Saturday)