Matthew Myers, Author at Griffith Hack

Our parent company, IPH, is continuing to work with leading external cyber security and forensic IT advisors to respond to, and conduct a forensic investigation into, the cyber incident announced on 16 March 2023. The incident impacted Griffith Hack’s document management system and practice management system.

IPH advises that they have now established new network infrastructure following a strict restoration process and key system functionality has now been restored. Under the advice of cyber security experts, security has also been further enhanced, including additional preventative and detective controls to protect the IPH network. The new systems are now in use by Griffith Hack, and our transition back to normal operating procedures on these new systems is underway.

IPH is continuing their response, and their investigation into the extent of and nature of the unauthorised access to the IT environment and data held within it, which is expected to extend over a number of weeks.

You can read the full statement from IPH here, and for any queries, please contact your relationship Principal.

Our parent company, IPH, recently detected unauthorised access to a portion of its IT environment. Based on preliminary analysis, it appears the incident has impacted Griffith Hack’s document management system and practice management system.

We apologise to our clients and the community for any concern that this incident may cause, and we will continue to keep our clients and stakeholders updated as our investigation continues.

You can read the full statement here, and for any queries, please contact your relationship Principal.

The introduction of a 12-month grace period to the Designs Act in Australia provides an important safe-guard against the unintended public disclosure of a design – but how does it differ to the grace period for patents? Jenny Wyndham-Wheeler and Radhika Moore provide an overview of this valuable tool.

So you want to protect the shape of your experimental sports drink bottle or the aesthetic of your Y2K nostalgic rollerblades? Don’t disclose too early! Designers and practitioners know any design needs to be distinctive over similar products that have been sold or advertised or simply made public before you file.

Until recently, as soon as you disclosed a product to the public, you were precluded from registering the design for that product. However, in 2021 the Designs Act in Australia was amended, meaning there’s a saving grace.

Grace period for designs

A review of the Australian Designs System was a long time coming. But in 2021[1] the Designs Act [2] was amended[3] to introduce a twelve-month grace period. The grace period applies to registered designs filed on or after, or with a priority date on or after, 10 March 2022.[4] Further, publication or use of a design on or after 10 March 2022 and within twelve months of the priority date are disregarded from the prior art base when assessing whether the design is new and distinctive.

Designers and practitioners welcoming the introduction of the designs grace period may have assumed the provisions would cover the same sorts of circumstances as the grace period under the Patents Act.[5] Although this statement is generally true, there is a notable exception.

The publications and uses which can be disregarded are those made by the registered owners, their predecessors in title and the person who created the design.[6] Unauthorised disclosure (i.e., publication or use without consent of the owner) is also covered by the grace period.

However, to those more familiar with patent law, an interesting exception is that the grace period does not cover publications of a design made by: [7]

the Australian Registrar of Designs;
other foreign national IP offices;
international organisations (e.g. WIPO); or
regional organisations (e.g. EUIPO).

This means that if your design is published by an IP office, this publication can be used to invalidate a design filed in Australia even if you file within 12 months of publication.

Comparison to patent law

In a similar vein, the Patents Act [8] allows a twelve-month grace period for information made publicly available with or without consent of the nominated person when deciding whether an invention is novel or inventive. The caveat is of course that a complete application must be made within 12 months of the date of publication/use of the information.

Some may be familiar with the Patents Regulations [9], which allows for publication of a patent application by an IP office and subsequent filing of a complete patent application in Australia within twelve months under the grace period. The publication of the relevant patent by an IP office will not form part of the prior art base, and thus publication is covered by the grace period.[10]

We have written in detail about grace periods for patents here.

Why the inconsistency?

When filing in Australia, applicants can claim priority to overseas patent applications lodged in the preceding twelve months. Whereas design applicants can only claim priority to overseas designs applications lodged in the preceding six months.

The shorter Paris Convention priority led legislators to exclude publications by IP offices from the designs grace period.[11] This is to try to prevent applicants from abusing the 12-month grace period, in circumstances where the design applicant should have filed a design application within the 6-month Paris Convention window.

Best practice

Overall, it’s best practice to file an application before disclosing your design or patent. This ensures your own disclosure cannot be used as prior art to invalidate the patent or design. However grace period laws give you the opportunity to file after disclosure, and that can really save you.

How we can help

If you have any questions regarding the grace periods in designs law or patent law, or have any other questions about how best to protect your IP, please do not hesitate to contact Robert, Radhika or you can submit a general enquiry here.

[1] Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (Cth), Review of the Designs System, Final Report (2015) 11.

[2] Designs Act 2003 (Cth) s 17.

[3] Designs Act 2003 (Cth) Endnote 3 (‘Designs Act (Cth)’).

[4] IP Australia, Designs Examiners’ Manual of Practice and Procedure (Web Page, 7 April 2022) (‘IPAU Designs Manual grace period’).

[5] Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

[6] Designs Act (Cth) s 17(1D).

[7] IPAU Designs Manual grace period (n 4).

[8] Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 24.

[9] Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth).

[10] Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) Regs. 2.2, 2.2A, 2.2B, and 2.2C.

[11] https://ficpi.org/blog/australian-registered-designs-law-reform-introduction-grace-period-and-other-changes

Griffith Hack has once again been recognised as a leader in intellectual property in Australia following the release of the 2023 edition of The Legal 500 Australia guide.

Griffith Hack received a Tier 2 ranking for the third year running, maintaining its standing as the only specialist IP services firm to be ranked in either Tier 1 or 2, demonstrating the firm’s capacity to rival larger international firms in technical capability and engagement management.

Additionally, Griffith Hack principal and practice group leader of the firm’s law team Derek Baigent has been recognised as one of Australia’s leaders in intellectual property, receiving the prestigious ranking of Leading Individual. Derek has received this honour every year since 2019.

Full rankings can be found here.

Nicola Scheepers and Jacqueline Simpkin address new developments for attorneys registering trade marks in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Reduced response deadlines in the United States

A recent amendment to United States trade mark law will fast-track prosecution timelines by reducing the window of time in which to respond to office actions. Trade marks attorneys should take note that the deadline to respond to office actions issued on or after 3 December 2022 has been shortened from six months to three months.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) will allow the deadline to be extended by an additional three months, however the request must be made before the expiry of the initial three-month period and accompanied by a USD$125 extension fee. Failure to meet the deadline may be seen as abandonment of the trade mark application and additional fees will apply to revive an abandoned application.

The new rule applies only to national applications and does not apply to applications filed under the Madrid Protocol, where the existing 6-month response deadline continues to apply.

The amendment is intended to improve the efficiency of the system and address the backlog of trade mark applications at the USPTO, where thousands of applications are yet to be examined and the average time to register a trade mark has increased to 18 months.

With the introduction of the shortened deadline, and the requirement to seek an extension before its expiry, it is more important than ever for applicants and attorneys to seek and provide early instructions, to monitor prosecution timelines and seek extensions, if required, before deadlines pass.

Increased need for local representatives in the United Kingdom

A recent decision of the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (‘UKIPO’) has overturned a Declaration of Invalidity on the basis of improper service.

In New Holland Ventures Pty Ltd v Tradeix Ltd O/681/22, the UKIPO attempted to serve notification of invalidity proceedings on the owner of a UK designation at its Australian office as there was no address for service in the United Kingdom on record. However, the notification was not received because the Australian office was closed owing to COVID-19 lockdowns. Accordingly, the owner was not aware of the proceedings and the two-month deadline to file a defence lapsed.

With no defence filed, the UKIPO issued a Declaration of Invalidity which was again sent to Australian office, though this was again not received. Fortunately, the UKIPO also notified the International Bureau and the owner was informed of the situation by its WIPO representative. A UK representative was appointed and the owner filed an appeal against the invalidity decision.

The Appointed Person set aside the decision of the Hearing Officer on the basis that the registrar does not have authority to serve documents outside the jurisdiction and accordingly, the invalidity application was not validly served on the trade mark owner.

The Appointed Person observed that parties to proceedings under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK) are required to provide the UKIPO with an address for service in the United Kingdom. However, if there is no address for service on file, and the Registrar has sufficient information to contact the person, the Registrar must direct the person to file an address for service. As the Registrar had not done so, the appeal was allowed, and the invalidity application was remitted to the Registrar for fresh consideration.

Following this decision, the UKIPO has suspended the review of newly-filed disputes concerning UK designations of international registrations to enable it to assess its rules and procedures. We consider it likely that the Trade Marks Rules 2008 (UK) will be amended to require a local address for service in the near future. It remains best practice to appoint a UK representative to ensure all notifications from the UKIPO can be dealt with promptly.

Key takeaways and practice tips

The response deadline for office actions in the United States has been shortened from 6-months to 3-months.
Extensions for an additional three months are available, provided a request is filed during the initial 3-month period and accompanied by a fee.
The UKIPO is reviewing its procedures with respect to the requirement to file an address for service.
Appointing an UK representative is highly recommended.

Griffith Hack is proud to announce the promotion of three team members, including the elevation of patent attorney Edith Hamilton to principal. These promotions are effective from January 1, 2023.

Along with Edith, Rachael Lopez and Sara Pearson – both lawyers in our Law & Trade Marks team – have been promoted to associate.

“On behalf of everyone at Griffith Hack, I would like to congratulate Edith, Rachael and Sara on their promotions,” said Griffith Hack’s managing director Aaron LePoidevin. “Since joining our firm in August 2021, they have developed strong relationships and delivered outstanding results for their clients – both here in Australia and internationally.”

“I wish them continued success as they continue to deliver positive outcomes, and help to further elevate Griffith Hack as a leading IP services provider in Australia.”

Edith’s elevation to principal now means that Griffith Hack has 57% of principals who identify as female, further enhancing our position as a leading firm for gender equality.

About Edith

Edith Hamilton is a patent and trade marks attorney based in Melbourne, and is part of Griffith Hack’s Engineering and ICT practice group.

Edith’s technical expertise embraces mechanical engineering, materials science and chemistry, and her experience extends into in the areas of fast moving consumer goods, including food packaging; food technology; advanced materials production and processing; fibre and textile technology; process engineering; oil and gas; clean technology; and mining technology, including explosives and blasting technology. Edith also has a keen interest in designs.

Find out more about Edith

About Rachael

Rachael Lopez is a lawyer based in Melbourne. She specialises in trade mark, brand protection and IP, and is passionate about making IP feel accessible and commercial to clients.

Rachael has a background in IP and technology law. Her practice encompasses areas of IP such as trade mark prosecution, IP licensing, copyright, designs, as well as commercial law areas like competition and consumer law, breach of confidence, commercial contracting, domain name disputes, takedown notices, privacy law (including GDPR), data protection, and terms of use for websites and electronic platforms. Rachael enjoys working with clients in a diverse range of sectors including consumer goods, fashion, pharmaceuticals, and technology.

Find out more about Rachael

About Sara

Sara Pearson is a lawyer and trade marks attorney based in Perth. She enjoys working with clients across all industries to harness and protect their intellectual property.

Sara specialises in trade mark and brand protection including trade mark prosecution, registration, opposition and infringement action. She also has expertise in competition and consumer law and dispute resolution, including litigation.  

Find out more about Sara

Rules and requirements for early national phase entry and expedited examination requests differ from country to country, so what are the options available for patent applicants in Australia?

In this in-depth Q&A, Robyn Heard and Dr Sophie Rankenburg from Griffith Hack’s Perth office provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about early national phase entry in Australia, and the options available for expedited examination requests.

Early national phase entry

What is the deadline for entering national phase in Australia?

The deadline for entering national phase in Australia is 31 months from the priority date of the application.

Is it possible to enter the national phase early in Australia?

Yes, as early as desired. However, it is worth noting that if national phase is entered before publication of the corresponding international PCT application (i.e. less than 18 months from the priority date), then a copy of the international application and any article 19 amendments must be provided. If the application is not in English, a verified translation must also be provided.

If entering the national phase early in Australia, will the application be processed early or will it sit in queue and be processed at the 31-month deadline?

Once the national phase is entered (even if early) the 31-month deadline ceases to be relevant and the application will be processed along standard timelines – unless early processing of the application is specifically requested. Examination may be requested on national phase entry.

Is there any additional cost for entering the national phase early?

No, there are no additional official fees. However, there may be additional attorney fees associated with this service – for example, to file additional documents if the PCT is pre-publication.

Examination requests

What is the earliest date the examination request can be filed?

Examination can be requested as early as at the time of filing the application. The final deadline to request examination is the earlier of 5 years from the effective filing date of the application or 2 months from the date the patent office issued a direction to request examination.

If early examination is requested, will the application to be examined early or will it sit in queue and be processed after the examination deadline?

If examination is requested early, it is expected that it will be processed early. However, if the ISR and ISO are not available at the time of examination, some delay may be expected at least until the ISR and ISO issue. Based on our recent experience, Australian applications are typically examined (unless we request expedited examination) around 6-12 months from the date examination is requested.

Is there any additional cost in requesting examination early?

No, it is the same cost as that which would be payable if examination was requested normally within the prescribed time.

Can an accelerated processing/examination of a case be requested?

Yes, expedited examination can be requested either as a direct request to the Australian patent office, or via the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH).

Australia is on the Global Patent Prosecution Highway

IP Australia is one of 25 patent offices around that world that is a member of the Global Patent Prosecution Highway. In broad terms, if you receive a ruling from one of the member offices that at least one claim in your application is allowable, you can ask another member office to fast track the examination of your corresponding application. Conversely, an early acceptance in Australia might be used to speed up examination in other countries.

If accelerated processing can be requested, what are the requirements for doing so and costs?

No extra cost for requesting expedited examination is payable, however there may be additional attorney service charges.

There are two options in Australia to expedite examination.

Option 1: GPPH

A request for expedited examination under the GPPH program is filed relying on the prosecution of a corresponding application (claiming the same priority date and document as claimed for the Australian application) in countries members of the GPPH such as, for example, the USA, and where at least one claim in the corresponding application was found allowable. The claims of the Australian patent application must conform to the allowed claims of the corresponding application. If not already conformed, voluntary amendments to conform the claims of the Australian patent application to the corresponding allowed claims must be filed together with the GPPH examination request, this may incur additional attorney service charges.

Option 2: Direct request for expedited examination

A request for expedited examination must be filed giving a reason for expediting examination, for example: for commercial reasons such as licensing, that the invention is in a field of technology that is environmentally beneficial, or that the applicant is a small to medium sized enterprise.

It is worth noting that this request does not require an opinion from any other patent office to have issued (unlike GPPH). This can be a first instance examination, used to obtain a positive opinion from the Australian patent office to enable GPPH requests in other jurisdictions.

For both expedited examination options, a first examination report will typically issue around two-months from the expedited examination request, setting a 12-month period for acceptance. Examiners will typically issue a further opinion or acceptance within two-months of a response, so it may be possible to obtain acceptance quite quickly.

When can voluntary amendments be filed? Is there a deadline for doing so?

Voluntary amendments can be filed at any time after filing the application. There is no deadline for doing so. However, additional fees may be incurred, for incorporating amendments into the published specification before requesting examination.

Voluntary amendments can be filed before, at the same time as requesting examination, or shortly after, with no official fee payable, if it is desired that such voluntary amendments be considered when the examination starts. . There are no official fees for amendments made during examination.

Our standard practice is to request a postponement of acceptance when filing a patent application to ensure that the Applicant is provided with the opportunity to file voluntary amendments before the application is accepted.

Voluntary amendments to the specification, including to correct a clerical or typographical error, are possible after acceptance of the application before grant if the scope of the claims after amendments is within the scope of the claims before amendment. In this case, the voluntary amendments will be published in the Official Journal and a period of two-months will be set for anyone wishing to oppose the voluntary amendments. If no opposition is filed by the end of the two-month period, then the voluntary amendments can be allowed.

After grant, voluntary amendments can be filed, restricted to amendments that fall within the scope of the claims as accepted. An official fee is payable. There may be restrictions on amendments if there is ongoing litigation in relation to the patent.

What factors may influence a decision on a most appropriate time to request examination?

Typically, the decision on timing for voluntarily requesting examination is dependent on the applicant’s commercial and financial position, potentially also considering timing of other family applications. For example, it may be preferable for the applicant, from a commercial point of view, to either expedite examination or simply request examination, as early as the filing date of the patent application. Alternatively, it may be preferable for the applicant, from a commercial and/or financial point of view, to delay costs by delaying examination of the application. After national filing of the patent application, the deadline for requesting examination is five years from the filing date or, if a Direction to Request Examination issues by the Patent Office, the deadline is two months from the issuance of the Direction. Despite the existence of the deadline for requesting examination, the Patent Office would generally issue a Direction to Request Examination between around 18 months and 48 months from the filing date of the national application.

Australian Examiners will typically look at examination of corresponding applications in a patent family and rise similar issues from the comments in the foreign examination reports, if these seem applicable under Australian law. Similarly, Australian examiners often (but not always) find persuasive opinions on acceptance from other jurisdictions. In view of the approach, progress in the prosecution of corresponding foreign applications may be useful to consider in relation to whether or not to seek early examination or delay.

Is there any difference between the type of claim amendments that can be made before examination compared to during examination?

No. In all cases, if claim amendments or any other amendments to the specification are made, the scope of the amendments must not extend beyond the subject matter as originally filed – in other words, no additional subject matter can be introduced as a result of the amendments. Amendments are more restricted after acceptance.

Key takeaways

In Australia, it is possible to enter national phase early before the 31-month deadline, and as early as desired.
In Australia examination must be requested and the timing of this request influences the processing timeline for the application more than the filing date.
Examination can be requested as early as at the time of filing the application.
Expedited examination can be requested either as a direct request to the Australian patent office, or via the Global Patent Prosecution Highway.

Contact us

As one of Australia’s largest specialist IP firms, Griffith Hack has significant experience advising international clients and associates on all aspects of local national phase entry and examination request requirements.

If you have any further questions about early national phase entry, expedited examination requests, or any other aspect of IP in Australia, or if you would like to receive information on costs, please do not hesitate to contact Robyn or Sophie, or your usual Griffith Hack contact.

Dr Malcolm Lyons and Dr Craig Don Paul discuss the key aspects of Australia’s Extension of Time (EOT) rules, using two recent Australian Patent Office decisions that highlight key requirements for a successful EOT application.

There are many requirements to gain or maintain a patent, and certain requirements have a deadline for completion. For example, filing a standard patent application claiming priority from an earlier provisional patent application, paying a renewal fee, or even filing an application before expiration of the grace period (see article here), each of which has a deadline. Importantly, in some jurisdictions, where an action to be performed prior to a deadline is missed, it is possible to apply for an extension of time (EOT) to perform the missed action.

Australia is such a jurisdiction with comparatively liberal EOT legislation, which can remedy an error or omission by the applicant / patentee or their agent. An application for an EOT to remedy an error or omission must be accompanied by a declaration detailing the circumstance surrounding the error or omission. Balancing a need to act without undue delay once a missed action has been identified, the declaration may be filed up to two months after request by the patent office if the declaration was not filed with the EOT application.

Two relatively recent Australian Patent Office (APO) decisions, GloFish, LLC [2022] APO 52 (GloFish) and QIP Nominees Pty Ltd v CureVac AG [2022] APO 51 (CureVac), highlight the importance of two requirements for a successful EOT application of this nature: (i) a deadline must attach to an act that must be performed before that deadline, and failure to do so results in loss of rights; and (ii) a full and frank disclosure of the error or omission that caused the deadline to be missed.

(i) Deadline – GloFish

Under certain conditions, disclosure requirements relating to organisms may be satisfied by a deposit of the organism at an International Depositary Authority, e.g., the National Measurement Institute (NMI) in Australia, American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) in the USA, or European Collection of Authenticated Cell Cultures (ECACC) in Europe. To rely on the deposit, the deposit must be made before the earliest priority date of the application and the details of the deposit must be present in the specification when the application is published.

GloFish, LLC (GloFish) filed a US provisional application on 13 November 2018 and a PCT application on 13 November 2019 claiming priority from the provisional application. The applications were directed to transgenic fish that fluoresce different colours. Sperm samples of the various coloured GloFish were deposited at the ATCC on 20 March 2020, i.e. after the PCT filing date. GloFish filed EOT applications to satisfy the deposit requirements.

The key questions that the Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents (Delegate) intended to consider were statutory (was the act required to be done within a certain time) and factual (what was the error or omission that caused the missed deadline). The Delegate found that there was no statutory basis for the EOT, so factual evidence was not considered.

GloFish submitted that because making an organism deposit was not excluded by the regulations, it must be included (see [38] and [39]). In contrast, the Delegate reasoned that:

Until the filing is done (i.e. during the entirety of the purported implied period) there is no requirement to make any deposit (at [60])

and

The disclosure requirements are only satisfied if a certain state of affairs was in place at a certain time… There is no “within a certain time” to enliven s223 [the legislative EOT provision]. (original emphasis, at [61])

The Delegate also discussed the policy principles relating to organism deposits (at [68] to [73]), noting that because the deposit of organisms occurred after filing, it was:

equivalent to filing the application before the [gene] sequencing had taken place and then later filing a sequence listing once the sequencing had been completed (at [71]).

The decision emphasised the need to consider carefully whether the EOT application is based on a mandatory action with an attached deadline, or in the language of the legislation, ‘a relevant act that is required to be done within a certain time’.

(ii) Disclosure – CureVac

A notice of opposition may be filed by any person who wishes to oppose the grant of a patent on an accepted Australian patent application. The notice of opposition must be filed within three months of the date of publication of acceptance.

An application in the name CureVac AG (CureVac) was advertised as accepted on 21 May 2022. Thus, the deadline to file a notice of opposition expired 21 August 2022. QIP Nominees Pty Ltd (QIP) filed a notice of opposition on 27 August 2022 along with an EOT application for one month to file the notice of opposition. Declarations supporting the EOT request were filed in September and November 2022.

The Delegate considered five factors when deciding if discretion should be provided and the EOT application allowed. However, the decision turned on the first factor considered – “whether the Commissioner is satisfied that a proper case has been made out justifying an extension”. In other words, whether the EOT applicant has made a full and frank disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the error or omission that the EOT aims to remedy (discussed at [35] to [45]).

QIP, acting on behalf of a third party who wanted to remain anonymous, submitted evidence confirming a desire to pursue an opposition via an EOT application. However, CureVac asserted that the evidence provided was not a full and frank disclosure. The Delegate agreed stating:

I am left with many questions … relevant to an understanding of how the failure to file the notice of opposition came about and to evaluating the reasonableness of the conduct” (emphasis added, at [41]).

Even though the third party wished to remain anonymous, the Delegate noted that it should still have been possible to provide a full and frank disclosure without divulging any information identifying the third party (at [44]).

The decision reiterated the need when applying for EOT for a full and frank disclosure of the error or omission causing an action to which a deadline attaches to be missed.

Key requirements and practice tips

EOT is discretionary
EOT will be granted only for missed acts that are mandatory and have a deadline attached, expiry of which without performing the act will result in loss of rights
When providing evidence of error or omission in support of an EOT application, be as thorough as possible – declarations should be a full and frank disclosure of the error or omission
Ensure that appropriate controls are in place to ensure reminders are received and deadlines are not missed
- especially true if requesting no reminders from attorneys to minimise costs
- can be used as evidence that error/omission was not deliberate

Griffith Hack has been recognised in the Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2023, receiving both firm and individual rankings for Intellectual Property.

At a firm level, Griffith Hack was ranked band three for Intellectual Property in Australia, while Derek Baigent, Practice Group Leader of our Law group, received a band four ranking for Intellectual Property: Patents in Australia.

The Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide is published annually, providing commentary on the best legal talent globally. The qualities on which the rankings are assessed include technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial astuteness, diligence and commitment.

We are proud of Derek and everyone at Griffith Hack for their hard work and dedication to client service, and are delighted that this has been recognised. We also thank our clients, referees and peers who spent their valuable time participating in the research that goes towards our recognition in the guide.

Griffith Hack’s Sean Kelley will join the speaker line-up at the 2022 World Renewable Energy Congress (WREC), hosted by Murdoch University in Perth from 4-9 December.

First held in 1992, WREC promotes renewable energy global development and addresses the most strategic issues of sustainable energy development and innovation. The event helps foster the transfer of renewable energy technology and knowledge from developed countries to developing countries.

Sean, a senior associate at Griffith Hack and registered patent attorney, will join presenters from around the world including policy makers, scientists, engineers, technology developers, and business practitioners.

What Sean is presenting on

Global patent offices are uniquely positioned to witness trends in renewable energy innovation as renewable energy companies file patent applications to protect their technology. Sean will outline recent trends in low-carbon energy innovation using publicly available patent data and will showcase the unique options available to renewable energy companies seeking to protect their inventions.

About Sean

Sean is a registered patent attorney based in Perth. He advises clients with respect to mechanical, mechatronic and software inventions. Having worked in Perth’s mining and oil and gas sectors and as an in-house patent attorney at one of New Zealand’s largest companies, he has extensive knowledge and experience to draw from when providing advice.

Sean leverages this experience when working with his clients to help grow their businesses by creating and using the intangible assets that provide them with a competitive advantage.

Read Sean’s full bio