The Australian Government has further detailed its latest IP systems simplification package, with two changes standing out for applicants and rights holders. The first would replace the current Time to Acceptance model with a more responsive examination timetable, closer in spirit to the US approach. In practice, patent applicants could face shorter reply windows after an examination report, such as a two-month period for response, alongside tighter limits on the number of formal replies.The second proposal would allow patents and designs to use “virtual marking” through QR codes, barcodes...

IP Australia’s 2026 Australian Intellectual Property Report shows that trademark filings reached a record 97,345 in 2025, up 13.3%, while applications by Australian residents rose 15.1% to 55,913. Domestic standard complete patent filings also increased, from 2,578 to 2,810, a gain of 9.0%. Taken together, the patent, trademark and design data suggest that Australian businesses are making more deliberate use of IP to support branding, technology protection and product differentiation.The growth was not evenly distributed across filing origins. Standard patent applications from the United...

IP Australia implemented its second-half 2026 patent fee changes on 1 August, with a sharp increase in excess claim fees for applications carrying large claim sets, particularly once the number of claims exceeds 20. The change is likely to alter how PCT applicants approach Australian national phase entry: retaining broad, heavily layered claim sets without early consolidation may now create a noticeably higher cost at the outset.At the same time, the new Green and Low-Carbon Technology Patent Fast Track offers a different incentive. Eligible inventions in areas such as clean energy, carbon...

According to recent reporting by Asia IP, and as confirmed by official information released by the relevant authorities, from March 1, 2026, PCT applicants filing through IP Australia may designate the European Patent Office (EPO) or the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) as their International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA), in addition to the previously available options of IP Australia and the Korean authority. For applicants using Australia as the receiving Office, this is more than a procedural update. It materially...

IP Australia’s latest Australian IP Report 2026 records a sharp rise in filing activity during 2025: trade mark applications reached 97,345, up 13.3%, while design applications increased to 10,296, up 7.1%. Both categories set new records. Standard patent applications, by contrast, eased by 0.5% to 30,348, suggesting that technology filings have moved into a more selective phase rather than following the same expansion seen in brands and product appearance.The report’s research on firm performance gives the figures a practical edge. Businesses tend to show sustained gains in productivity,...

IP Australia has signalled a more deliberate effort to make trade mark opposition practice less expensive and less drawn out, with one of the most notable developments being a trial of Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) before parties are pulled deep into the full evidence cycle. On the model now being discussed, a trade mark applicant and an opponent may choose to place their preliminary materials before an IP Australia decision-maker and receive a non-binding view on the relative strength of the case, the real points in dispute, and whether settlement or withdrawal makes more commercial sense...

IP Australia’s latest final consultation summary on the exposure draft for design law implementation points in a clear direction: protection for partial designs is moving closer to reality in Australia. The Office has already said it intends to progress reform so that applicants can protect part of a physical product, as part of a broader effort to make the design system more accessible and less cumbersome. For brand owners and product design teams, this is not a cosmetic adjustment. It goes to the level at which design rights can be carved out, how product families can be protected, and...

IP Australia has confirmed that, from 1 July 2026, the reminder process for patent excess claims will shift from the current "about six months before expected examination" model to a fixed window within three months after an examination request is filed. That is a practical change, not just an administrative one. A fixed trigger gives applicants and counsel a clearer point to review whether claims should be trimmed before examination starts, which in turn makes fee exposure and prosecution timing easier to manage.The real improvement is predictability. Instead of waiting for an estimate...

IP Australia’s current trade mark manual makes the point more plainly than before: a specification that is unrealistically broad can put intended use in issue at the examination stage. Filing an application will still usually be taken as indicating use or intended use, but that presumption no longer does all the work once the claimed goods or services are commercially implausible on their face.That matters for applicants who have relied on wide, placeholder-style filings to reserve room first and define the business later. In the digital economy, the familiar combination of classes 9, 35...

IP Australia’s current trade mark practice makes one point much clearer than before: in a three-year non-use dispute, it is not enough for a brand to point to a product page that happened to be visible from Australia. The harder question is whether the page, payment flow, delivery settings and surrounding marketing actually show that Australian consumers were being targeted. For cross-border e-commerce sellers, that is not a minor evidentiary tweak. It changes what kinds of digital records are likely to matter when a registration is challenged.The point is not that online evidence suddenly...

As 1 July approaches, IP Australia has made two process signals hard to ignore. One is the reorganisation of patent examination teams across electrical, communications and computing technologies. The other is the start of a new excess-claims fee workflow, under which applicants will be reminded three months after requesting examination if their claim set still sits above the free threshold. These are not isolated administrative notices. Together, they change how applicants should think about timing, claim volume and technical positioning before examination really starts.A third signal...

On 9 July 2026, India’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and IP Australia signed an access agreement for the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) as part of the outcomes announced at the third India–Australia Annual Summit. Under the TKDL access framework, Australian patent examiners may use the database on a confidential basis for search and examination, drawing on a large body of documented traditional medicine formulations and related literature. IP Australia had already referred to TKDL as a non-patent literature resource in its examination guidance; the new...

Practice signals in early August 2026 point to closer scrutiny in Australia and New Zealand of defensive trademark stockpiling and cross-border bad-faith filings. In opposition, non-use cancellation and related examination contexts, the commercial basis for broad specifications is becoming a more sensitive issue, particularly in Nice Classes 9, 35 and 41, where digital-economy filings can easily extend well beyond a business's near-term activities.For overseas applicants, expansive coverage unsupported by contemporaneous evidence of local market plans, product or service preparation,...

On 13 August 2026, IP Australia updated its patent examination practice to give a more detailed and broader reading of technologies that may qualify for accelerated examination on environmental grounds. The scope is no longer framed only around conventional green hardware such as solar equipment or battery materials: smart-grid technologies, carbon-footprint accounting and AI-based energy optimisation software aimed at reducing data-centre power consumption are now being treated as part of the green-technology fast-track landscape. IP Australia’s current examination manual already...

On 27 August 2026, IP Australia announced a new automated data-screening mechanism in its trademark examination backend aimed at identifying overbroad specifications and so-called “ghost designations” in both Madrid designations and direct Australian filings. The initiative focuses particularly on Classes 9, 35 and 41, where broad claims covering software and electronics, advertising and e-commerce, and education and entertainment services are common. Marks that remain unsupported by evidence of actual use and appear materially wider than any credible commercial plan may face more searching...

Editor’s note (24 September 2026): as of publication we have not located an official announcement of the measures described below; this article is based on industry briefings and is subject to official confirmation. According to an update dated 1 September 2026, IP Australia has introduced a mandatory disclosure step for AI-assisted patent drafting and incorporated the declaration into front-end system checks. The change shifts the use of generative AI from a largely internal drafting issue into the procedural compliance workflow: before an application proceeds through ordinary...

On 7 September 2026, IP Australia updated its trademark examination practice guidance to clarify how evidence of genuine commercial use should be assessed in non-use removal proceedings. For cross-border sellers, the practical message is that merely showing a mark on an international e-commerce platform or proving that a website was accessible from Australia may carry limited weight on its own. Evidence such as Australian-dollar pricing or payment, orders and shipping records to Australian addresses, and marketing directed specifically at Australian consumers is more likely to demonstrate a...

IP Australia's website currently carries an "email scam warning" pinned to the top of every page: a scam impersonating IP Australia is targeting trade mark applicants, and anyone who receives an unexpected email about their IP rights should verify the sender before taking any action. As of 22 September the banner appears on the home page, the trade marks section and the forms page, and links to the office's official guidance on spotting and avoiding IP scams. That guidance explains that scammers send notices, invoices, emails, text messages and phone calls about trade...

Australian legal outlets Lawyerly and Australasian Lawyer report that Adidas Australia and a second applicant filed trade mark infringement proceedings against the local fashion brand White Fox Boutique in the Federal Court of Australia on 21 September, the matter being logged as Adidas Australia & Anor v White Fox. Adidas and its solicitors Mallesons declined to comment and the pleadings are not yet public; the Australian Financial Review reads the case as most likely challenging stripe motifs on some White Fox designs that resemble the Adidas three-stripe mark, while Trademark Lawyer...