*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
This issue of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal<\/em> (Volume 35 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u2013 General Editor: Dianne Nicol<\/em><\/p>\n Towards a Sustainable Patent System and Society<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Ant\u00f3nio Campinos<\/p>\n In 2023 the European Patent Office (EPO) celebrated 50 years of the European Patent Convention (EPC). In that time, the signatories to the EPC grew from 16 to 39 Member States, and the EPO granted over two million European Patents. Launched in the year of its Golden Jubilee, the EPO\u2019s Strategic Plan 2028 centres on one overarching goal: sustainability. It guides the EPO towards establishing a more sustainable European Patent Organisation and patent system that can support the innovation ecosystem, economic growth, and competitiveness in Europe and beyond. In this address, the President of the EPO shares his vision for the next stage of the Organisation\u2019s contribution to the patent system and the societal benefits it brings.<\/p>\n Access to Vaccines and Intellectual Property Reform<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>\u2013 Christopher Arup<\/p>\n How might intellectual property best be reformed to prepare for more health emergencies? Drawing on the experience of the pandemic and the subsequent initiatives, this article canvasses reform along three dimensions, intellectual property rights, intellectual property competition, and intellectual property contracts between governments and producers. It employs Mariana Mazzucato\u2019s model of co-investment and collaboration to recommend reforms along the third dimension.<\/p>\n Inventive Step\u2019s Origin Story: Taking an Inventive Step \u2026 Step by Step Part I<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>\u2013 Benjamin Hopper<\/p>\n Inventive step is a doctrine of patent law that asks whether the inventive contribution of the inventor involved a step that was not obvious. In determining the non-obvious inventive step, the contours of the invention as a unit of knowledge are identified. The test is objective \u2013 the inventiveness or non-obviousness of the step is assessed through the eyes of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. In a two-part article series, the author tells the origin story of inventive step. This Part I sets out the socio-economic and legal context in which the inventive step doctrine was developed. It shows how the inventive step doctrine emerged in response to the socio-economic changes of the Industrial Revolution, prompting a shift from persons seeking patents for new arts (whole workshops) to persons seeking patents for inventions of improvements, additions or combinations to be used as inputs in the capitalistic production process or to differentiate their goods from marketplace competitors. Part II will trace the doctrine\u2019s conception through the course of the long 19th century in the case law.<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – AIPJ Vol 35 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n