New Zealand: Patents Bill: "As such" or not "as such" - that is the question

Last Updated: 19 September 2012
Article by Jonathan Lucas

The Patents Bill will provide a much needed update to New Zealand's outdated patent laws but contains some controversy in a proposed exclusion to patentability for inventions involving computer programs.

Second reading gains widespread parliamentary support

On 12 September 2012, the New Zealand Patents Bill had its second reading in Parliament, over three years after its first reading and over four years after it was first introduced as a Bill.

In the parliamentary debate that followed there was unanimous support for the Patents Bill in general, with all parties acknowledging the need to update New Zealand's outdated patent1 laws. A modernisation of the 60-year old Patents Act was seen by most as essential for promoting economic growth in New Zealand by incentivising innovation. Many of the proposed changes to the patent legislation will also bring New Zealand into line with equivalent laws in other countries.

Debate over software clause

Almost all of the parliamentary debate centred on recently introduced changes to a proposed clause to exclude computer programs from patentability2.

Prior to the second reading, the Government released Supplementary Order Paper No 120 . That paper proposed to amend the exclusion to software patents to exclude only inventions that "relate to a computer program as such". The two words "as such" were added to the existing form of the exclusion, a small but arguably important change to clarify the extent of the exclusion by mirroring the wording of legislation in the UK and Europe.

While the National Government defended the recently proposed amendment, MPs from Labour, the Green Party and NZ First opposed the change. Labour MP Claire Curran tabled Supplementary Order Paper No 123, which proposes to amend the wording of the exclusion to state that it does not extend to any inventions that "make use of an embedded computer program".

Introduction of an exclusion

A first point of note is that the inclusion of any exclusion at all is a victory for the anti-software patent lobbyists. In both the current law and the first draft of the Patents Bill there was no software exclusion of any kind and nor were submissions on an exclusion sought by the Select Committee which heard public submissions on the Bill after its first reading.

Some of the MPs opposing the Government's preferred "as such" wording complained that Craig Foss, the Minister of Commerce, introduced the recent amendment to the exclusion without due consultation.

However, this objection could be viewed as hypocrisy from the anti-software patent contingent since the exclusion itself was surprisingly introduced to the Bill prior to its second reading on the recommendation of the Commerce Select Committee (CSC). That recommendation resulted from lobbying from a number of small Kiwi software developers and was not subsequently opened to a democratic submission process.

Options for the software exclusion

The crux of the debate pivots on the choice of wording for the clause that will exclude some software inventions from patentability.

It is fair to say that everyone recognises the importance of clear wording. If innovators have a clear understanding of what is and is not patentable under the legislation, they can make an informed decision about whether to apply for patent protection and litigation costs (generally seen as only benefitting the legal sector) can be minimised.

It is also fair to say that advocates of both alternatives believe their preferred wording provides the most clarity. But who is right? And does it matter?

It could certainly be argued that the aim of all parties, in terms of legislating on what inventions should be patentable and what should not, is the same and that, ultimately, both options will be interpreted in a similar way. But even if that is the case, there is obviously a preference for the clearest and most robust wording.

The benefits of "as such"

In our view, while not ideal, the "as such" version is the better option.

On the face of it there would seem little difference between excluding "computer programs" and "computer programs as such" from patentability. But the words "as such" are essential to clarify that, while the particular software steps chosen to implement a computer program should not be patentable, the fundamental effect of the computer program itself may be, provided of course that it is novel3 and sufficiently inventive (the same criteria applied to any patentable invention4). This follows the intentions of the CSC who introduced the exclusion.

Another benefit of "as such" is that it mirrors the equivalent legislation in the UK and Europe. Those patent regimes have used this wording for some time now, meaning NZ software developers and decision makers have access to a wealth of case law to clarify any uncertainty in its meaning.

In the Parliament debate, Claire Curran and others argued against the "as such" wording by noting some criticism of the UK and European legislation. It is certainly true that there have been some contentious cases in these jurisdictions but the more cases that are decided, the greater the clarity that follows, and at least our decision makers can hit the ground running.

The problems with "embedded"

Compare that with defining the exclusion of software inventions except "embedded computer programs". The term "embedded" is not defined and has not been considered by any patent office or court anywhere in the world.

Ms Curran herself states that "the boundaries of embedded software [will] be determined by the Government on a case-by-case basis as appropriate". In other words, to reach the clear position everyone wants, cases will need to be litigated. Ironically, this is the very situation Ms Curran seeks to avoid. Given the few New Zealand patent cases that go to a patent office hearing, and the fewer still that reach the courts, it could be a long time until the much-needed clarity is found, and that clarity will come at a significant cost to those unlucky litigants required to blaze the trail.

Another issue with the term "embedded" is that the field of computer technology is advancing so quickly that its relevance may change in a short space of time. Devices running embedded software today may be run by non-embedded software in the future. For example, the line between mobile devices (that are generally considered to run embedded software) and general-purpose computers (that do not) is quickly fading. The Patents Bill needs to be future-proof to remain relevant and avoid the need to re-legislate in a few years' time.

Making the patent system work for Kiwis

It is mostly small Kiwi software developers that support the broadest exclusion possible. Some anti-software patent proponents have argued that only multinationals are in favour of the narrower exclusion but submissions in response to draft guidelines on how patent applications involving computer programs might be examined released by the Ministry of Economic Development show that many large New Zealand companies also take this view.

The smaller developers seem to see patents as tools that will be used against them. And it is true that the vast majority of NZ patents are filed by overseas companies. But perhaps small Kiwi innovators are not seeing how the patent system could work to their advantage?

Imagine you are a small Kiwi software company that develops a genuinely innovative product. For that product to stand a chance of success when faced with international companies who have the resources to quickly copy it, patents provide the best way to protect the intellectual property5 in the product and then to commercialise it, for example through licensing.

By using patents to their advantage, New Zealand software developers can take their innovations to places that would not be possible if the option to protect did not exist.

Where to from here?

Craig Foss has indicated that the Bill will not be referred again to the CSC so it will now be prepared for a third reading. It remains to be seen whether the Government will stand its ground or amend the controversial software clause in the face of the opposition6 it faces, if only to advance the much-needed reforms of New Zealand's patent laws.

Whatever happens, you can read about it here in subsequent updates. In the meantime, let us know what you think. Is the "as such" exclusion good or bad, and why do so many Kiwi software developers seem to struggle with the concept of patent protection being a shield not a sword?


1 A proprietary right in an invention which provides the owner with an exclusive right for up to 20 years to make, sell, use or import the invention. In exchange for this monopoly the patent is published so that others can see how the invention works and build on that knowledge. The patented invention may also be used by the public once the patent lapses.

2 A proprietary right in an invention which provides the owner with an exclusive right for up to 20 years to make, sell, use or import the invention. In exchange for this monopoly the patent is published so that others can see how the invention works and build on that knowledge. The patented invention may also be used by the public once the patent lapses.

3 One of the requirements for patentability and the first part of the test for inventive step. In patent law "novel" simply means new or not previously known. New Zealand currently has a "local novelty" requirement for patentability. This means that the subject invention will not be novel (and therefore will not be patentable) if it was known or used in New Zealand before the date on which the application for a patent was filed. There is a proposal to amend our legislation in late 2010 to move to an "absolute novelty" standard. This means that the subject matter must not be known or used anywhere in the world before the date of application in New Zealand. If the subject matter is known or used before the date of application, this is known as "anticipation".

4 The product of the creative process of inventing. In intellectual property law "invention" is a legal term usually describing patentable subject matter. Under current New Zealand legislation that subject matter includes any manner of manufacture which is new and involves an inventive step. However, certain types of invention are excluded from patentability. They include inventions which are contrary to morality (for example weapons of mass destruction) and methods of medical treatment (on public policy grounds that such methods should be available for health practitioners to use to the benefit of all society).

5 Refers to the ownership of an intangible thing - the innovative idea behind a new technology, product, process, design or plant variety, and other intangibles such as trade secrets, goodwill and reputation, and trade marks. Although intangible, the law recognises intellectual property as a form of property which can be sold, licensed, damaged or trespassed upon. Intellectual property encompasses patents, designs, trade marks and copyright.

6 In New Zealand, once a patent application has been accepted, it will be published in the Intellectual Property Office Journal. There is then a three month period where the application may be objected to (or opposed), by a third party. If no opposition is made the patent application will proceed to grant.

Any party that has an interest in the subject matter of the patent can oppose acceptance. The grounds that can be used to oppose a patent application include lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure of the invention. Not all countries have an opposition period on patent applications. For country specific information, contact your IP advisor.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

James & Wells Intellectual Property, three time winner of the New Zealand Intellectual Property Laws Award and first IP firm in the world to achieve CEMARS® certification.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
James & Wells Intellectual Property
James & Wells Intellectual Property
James & Wells Intellectual Property
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
James & Wells Intellectual Property
James & Wells Intellectual Property
James & Wells Intellectual Property
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions