This bill amends the Patents Act 2013 to apply stricter criteria for the grant of divisional applications filed under the Patents Act 1953, so that 1953 Act applications are examined in broadly the same way as 2013 Act applications.
This bill has been accorded urgency in the House.
First detected 11 July 2026, 9:21am UTC.
Member in charge:
Hon Cameron Brewer
· Government bill
· No. 154-1
· urgency accorded 28 May 2026 (the remaining stages of)
The avenues that remain: petitions to
Parliament (including seeking amendment or repeal); consultation on the regulations
that often follow an Act, which do carry public submission windows; and
the member in charge
or your electorate MP
on implementation problems — post-passage corrections ride in later amendment bills.
Dates are sitting days as recorded by the Office of the Clerk; a sitting extended under
urgency continues under its original day. Readings are decided by party
vote: each party casts its members’ votes en bloc (proxies included), so
the whole House needn’t be present and individual attendance isn’t recorded
— the party-by-party tally for each reading is in that day’s Hansard, linked
per stage above.
Who spoke in the debates
Members who took a call in this bill’s debates, from our Hansard corpus. Under
urgency several bills are often debated together (a “cognate” debate), so
speakers may be addressing the group of bills.
Topics in the OpenBrief corpus matched to this bill’s title, with their volume over
the last six weeks — how loud the subject already was when urgency was moved. This
is retrieval against our existing corpus, not model judgement.
AI-assisted analysis · every claim links to primary source ·
corrections
Published 11 Jul 2026, 7:20pm UTC (separate from, and later than, the alert timestamp above)
· model: claude-opus-4-8
In short: Divisional patent applications filed after commencement under the 1953 Act must meet the 2013 Act's novelty, inventive-step, and support standards.
What changes
Changes a thresholdFor divisional applications filed on or after commencement (dated before 13 September 2014), the Commissioner must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the invention is novel, involves an inventive step, and is supported by the specification before accepting it.
cl 7 → Patents Act 2013, s 258A
· affects: patent applicants filing 1953 Act divisional applications after commencement, Commissioner of Patents
· confidence: high
The bill text this is based on
“before accepting a complete specification under section 20 of the Patents Act 1953, the Commissioner must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that—”
Changes a thresholdOpposition to the grant of a patent on such divisional applications is limited to specified grounds, including that the invention is not novel, lacks an inventive step, or is not supported by the specification.
cl 7 → Patents Act 2013, s 258A
· affects: third parties opposing patent grants, patent applicants
· confidence: high
The bill text this is based on
“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:”
Expands a powerIn opposition proceedings the Commissioner must give the applicant and opponent a reasonable opportunity to be heard and may consider whether the invention is not novel even if the opponent does not rely on that ground.
cl 7 → Patents Act 2013, s 258A
· affects: applicants, opponents, Commissioner of Patents
· confidence: high
The bill text this is based on
“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”
Changes a thresholdRe-examination and revocation of patents granted on such divisional applications may proceed on grounds including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and lack of support by the specification.
cl 5 → Patents Act 2013, s 254
· affects: patent holders, parties seeking re-examination or revocation, the Commissioner, the court
· confidence: high
The bill text this is based on
“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:”
ProceduralSection 258's treatment of divisional applications as 1953 Act applications is restricted to those filed before the commencement date, with post-commencement applications governed by new section 258A.
cl 6 → Patents Act 2013, s 258
· affects: patent applicants filing 1953 Act divisional applications
· confidence: high
The bill text this is based on
“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”
Removes a rightThe prior-use infringement defence in section 146 continues not to apply to patents resulting from divisional applications treated as made under the 1953 Act, including those under new section 258A.
cl 4 → Patents Act 2013, s 146
· affects: patent holders, persons relying on prior use as an infringement defence
· confidence: medium
The bill text this is based on
“In section 146(5)(a), replace “section 258” with “ sections 258 and 258A”.”
patent applicants filing 1953 Act divisional applications after commencementCommissioner of Patentsthird parties opposing patent grantspatent applicantsapplicantsopponentspatent holdersparties seeking re-examination or revocationthe Commissionerthe courtpatent applicants filing 1953 Act divisional applicationspersons relying on prior use as an infringement defence
Scrutiny
Taken under urgency; the compressed timetable limited scrutiny even where a committee stage existed.
Commencement: The Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.
Retrospective: no provision identified
Method: the model reads the bill as published (claude-opus-4-8); every claim above carries a
verbatim span of that text, checked mechanically — claims that fail the check are
dropped, not softened. Text analysed from
an archived copy of the
official text.
Full methodology →
The law, before and after
Deterministic — no AI involved
Every amendment instruction in the bill, executed mechanically against the archived text
of the Act it changes. Struck text is removed,
highlighted text is added.
5 operations resolved; 2 listed with
the reason they couldn’t be — a visible gap, not a hidden one.
Patents Act 2013 · 5 resolved, 2 unresolved
Amendedcl 4 — Section 146 amended (No infringement for prior use of invention)
(section 146(5)(a))
The bill says: In section 146(5)(a), replace "section 258" with " sections 258 and 258A".
146 No infringement for prior use of invention
(1) It is not an infringement of a patent for a person to do an act that exploits an invention, and that would infringe a patent apart from this section, if, immediately before the priority date of the relevant claim, the person-
(a) was exploiting the invention in the patent area; or
(b) had taken definite steps (contractually or otherwise) to exploit the invention in the patent area.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if, before the priority date, the person-
(a) had stopped (except temporarily) exploiting the invention; or
(b) had abandoned (except temporarily) the steps to exploit the invention.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to an invention the person derived from any of the following persons, unless the person derived the invention from information that was made publicly available by or with the consent of that person:
(a) the patentee or nominated person:
(b) any person from whom the patentee or nominated person derives title.
(4) A person (A)-
(a) may dispose of the whole of A's entitlement under subsection (1) to exploit an invention without infringing a patent to another person (B) (and in this case subsections (1) to (3) apply to B as they applied to the first person who had that entitlement and from whom B's entitlement was directly or indirectly derived); but
(b) may not license any or all of A's entitlement under subsection (1) to another person.
(5) This section applies in respect of a patent only if-
(a) the relevant patent application was made under this Act on or after the commencement of Part 3 (and sectionsections 258 and 258A did not apply); or
(b) this Act applies to the relevant patent application under section 256, 257, or 259(4).
Compare: Patents Act 1990 s 119 (Aust)
Shown as writtencl 5 — Section 254 amended (Transitional provision for patents granted under Patents Act 1953)
(section 254(2)(d))
The bill says: In section 254(2)(d), after "(rather than the grounds in section 114 of this Act)", insert "unless subsection (4) applies".
We haven’t applied this one as a diff: the quoted text appears 2 times in the provision and the instruction points at one place — no diff is shown rather than guessing which occurrence.
The new text the bill supplies:
unless subsection (4) applies
Shown as writtencl 5 — Section 254 amended (Transitional provision for patents granted under Patents Act 1953)
(section 254(2)(e))
The bill says: In section 254(2)(e), after "(rather than the grounds in section 114 of this Act)", insert "unless subsection (5) applies".
We haven’t applied this one as a diff: the quoted text appears 2 times in the provision and the instruction points at one place — no diff is shown rather than guessing which occurrence.
The new text the bill supplies:
unless subsection (5) applies
New provisioncl 5 — Section 254 amended (Transitional provision for patents granted under Patents Act 1953)
(section 254(2))
The bill says: 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 ground in section 41(1)(b) to (d), (g), (h), or (j) to (m) of the Patents Act 1953:
that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base is not novel:
that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base does not involve an inventive step:
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 ground in section 41(1)(b) to (d), (g), (h), (j) to (m), or (3) of the Patents Act 1953:
that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base is not novel:
that the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base does not involve an inventive step:
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.
Before-text from
the Act
Amendedcl 6 — Section 258 amended (Patents Act 1953 applies to divisional applications dated before commencement)
(heading to section 258)
The bill says: In the heading to section 258, replace "divisional applications" with "certain divisional applications".
258 Patents Act 1953 applies to certain divisional applications dated before commencement
(1) This section applies to a fresh patent application that is made on or after the commencement of Part 3 of this Act (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 given a date before that commencement.
(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.
Replacedcl 6 — Section 258 amended (Patents Act 1953 applies to divisional applications dated before commencement)
(section 258(1))
The bill says: Replace section 258(1) with:
258 Patents Act 1953 applies to divisional applications dated before commencement
(1) This section applies to a fresh patent application that is made on or after the commencement of Part 3 of this Act (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 given a date before that commencement.made on or after 13 September 2014; and(2) Thethe date on which the fresh patent application must be treated as a patent application made underis actually filed is before the date on which the Patents Amendment Act 1953 (and section 255 applies to it)2025 comes into force; and the complete specification must be treated as having been filed on the date given to the fresh patent application.application is given a date before 13 September 2014.
New provisioncl 7 — New section 258A inserted (Transitional provisions for divisional applications filed after Patents Amendment Act 2025 comes into force)
(section 258)
The bill says: 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—
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
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
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,—
before accepting a complete specification under section 20 of the Patents Act 1953, the Commissioner must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that—
the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base is novel; and
the invention, so far as claimed in a claim, when compared with the prior art base involves an inventive step; and
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
sections 13 and 14 of the Patents Act 1953 do not apply; and
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:
a ground specified in section 21(1)(a), or (f) to (k) of the Patents Act 1953:
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):
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):
that the claim or claims of the complete specification are not supported by the matter disclosed in the specification; and
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):
the Commissioner must give the applicant and the opponent a reasonable opportunity to be heard before deciding the case; and
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
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
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.
Before-text from
the Act
In-place amendments are anchor-verified: the instruction’s own quoted text must
occur in the archived provision, which proves the archive is current enough for that
operation. Whole-provision replacements show the provision as archived on the date given
— later amendments by other Acts, if any, would not appear. Rows marked
AI-read had unusually-phrased instructions translated into a standard operation
by a model; the translation is checked word-for-word against the instruction, and the
change is still applied and verified mechanically.
Full methodology →
Source record — the urgency motion as published
28 May 2026
— scope: the remaining stages of
(All remaining stages)
A motion to accord urgency to the following business was agreed to:
- the first reading of the Appropriation (2025/26 Supplementary Estimates) Bill;
- the introduction and passing through all stages of:
- the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 3);
- the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Bill;
- the Gas (Market Transparency) Amendment Bill;
- the third reading of:
- the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill;
- the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill;
- the remaining stages of:
- the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill; and
- the Patents Amendment Bill;
