RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/W/66/Add.1
23May1997
ORGANIZATION(97-2165)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION INTHE FIELDS OFPATENTS, LAYOUT-DESIGNS
(TOPOGRAPHIES) OFINTEGRATED CIRCUITS, PROTECTION OF
UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND CONTROL OF
ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN
CONTRACTUAL LICENCES
Replies from Australia toquestions posed byJapan andtheUnited States
Addendum
Thefollowing communications, dated 15May1997 and16May1997, havebeenreceived
from thePermanent Mission ofAustralia.
_______________
I. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
Patents
1. Inyourcountry, arethefollowing subject matters protectable bypatent: (1)Plants andanimals,
and(2)Plant andanimal varieties?
Yessubject tothesame requirements asanyother subject matter.
2. Inyourcountry, istheactofoffering forsaleincluded intheexclusive rights ofpatent?
Theactofoffering forsaleisanexplicit rightgranted bythepatent -setoutinthedefinition
of"exploit" inthedictionary totheAct.
3. Inyourcountry, whatkinds ofactsarerecognized asexceptions totheexclusive rights conferred
byapatent right?
InAustralia, patent rights aredefined inaninclusive sense. There arenogeneral orspecific
exclusions. However, patent rights maybeaffected bythegrantofacompulsory licence iftheinvention
isnotused(Section 133), andtheCrown hascertain rights touseaninvention without alicence -but
withjustcompensation (Section 163).
4. Inyourcountry, inwhich caseisusewithout theauthorization oftherightholder permitted,
including usebythegovernment orbythird parties authorized bythegovernment?
Refer totheanswer toquestion 3.IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page2
5. Inyourcountry, howistheobligation under TRIPS Articles 34.1and34.2regarding theshift
oftheburden ofproof incivilproceedings forpatent infringement related toaprocess patent
implemented?
Article 34oftheTRIPS Agreement isimplemented bySection 121A oftheAct.
Undisclosed information
1. Please explain howundisclosed information isprotected inyourcountry, asrequired byTRIPS
Article 39.2.
Theprotection ofundisclosed information inAustralia isgoverned bythelawconcerning breach
ofconfidence andtradesecrets. Thisisnotprovided forinlegislation although somelegislation provides
forpersons tohaverelationships oftrustunder certain circumstances andobligations ofnon-disclosure
canarisebecauseofthatrelationship(e.g.trustee,solicitor,accountant,companyliquidator,stockbroker,
employee).
Thedoctrine ofbreach ofconfidence andtradesecrets hasbeenpartofourlawformany years.
Itderives fromthelawofEngland primarily asitdeveloped inthecourts ofequity. TheEnglish cases
arestillrelied oninAustralia asproviding relevant guidance anddirection fortheapplication ofthe
lawinAustralia. Case lawfrom other common lawjurisdictions canalsobepersuasive.
Anearly caseinEngland wasthatofMorison vMoat decided in1851. Thiscaseinvolved
thesecret ofhowtoprepare amedicinal compound. Ithadbeeninvented byJames Morison and
communicated tohispartner, Mr.Moat. Thecommunication hadbeenmade under contract which
forbade Moat todisclose thesecret toanyone. After thetermination ofthepartnership, Moat'sson,
representing theformula tobehisowninvention, usedit.Morison brought anaction incourt foran
injunction torestrain theuse,which wasgranted. TheCourt saidthere wasanequity against theson
arising from thebreach offaithandbreach ofcontract bythefather.
Overtheyears, thecaselawhasshown some inconsistency ofdoctrine butsincetheearly1960s
theprior reliance onsome notion ofanimplied contractual termasthebasis fortheexistence ofthe
non-disclosure obligation hasbeenreplaced byabroader principle ofequity concerned withensuring
thatpersons donotsuffer form anexercise ofbadfaithonthepartofanother.
Thecaselawhasnowlargely settled asetofcriteria onwhich ajudgement ismade about
protection ofconfidential information. Thislawisnotrestricted toatrade context.
Foraperson tosucceed inanaction toprotect hisconfidential information, heorshemust
satisfy thecourt that:
(i) theinformation itselfhadthenecessary quality ofconfidence orsecrecy about it.(See
Saltman Engineering andOthers vCampbell Engineering CoLtd[1948] 65RPC203
andCoco vANClarke (Engineering) Ltd[1969] RPC41,at47;
(ii) theinformation wasimparted incircumstances importing anobligation ofconfidence;
seeCocovANClarke (Engineering) atp.47; (there hasbeendebate about thenecessity
ofthefollowing 3rdfactor butitisgenerally present inthecases thathavecome before
thecourts); and
(iii) there hasbeen, ormaybe,anunauthorised useoftheinformation tothedetriment
orprejudice oftheowner.IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page3
Because thecourt isacting inequity, itsdiscretion toassist aplaintiff willbeassisted by
establishing thatadetriment orharm totheplaintiff hasresulted orwillresult fromthedisclosure or
usebythedefendant.
Thesubject matter ofanaction torestrain abreach ofconfidence ordisclosure ofatradesecret
"may potentially beanyfact,idea,invention, device, process orarticle thatpossess anecessary quality
ofconfidence orsecrecy" (McComas, Davison, Gonski TheProtection ofTrade Secrets, Butterworths
1981 atp.7).
Some examples ofwhathasbeenheldtoconstitute thesubject matter ofanaction toprotect
confidential information oratrade secret include:
(i) information obtained byaconsulting geologist andhisassociates from ageological
drilling programme;
(ii) information given totheother party about aninvisible carpet gripduring negotiations
forthedefendant tomarket thegrip(Seager vCopydex Ltd[1967] 1AllER);
(iii) information concerning thedesign, construction andoperation ofmachines formaking
rubber gloves (Ansell Rubber CovAllied Rubber Co[1967] VR37)(This isan
Australian casefrom theState ofVictoria);
(iv) denial orpre-trial discovery andinterrogatories aimed atdiscovering thedefendant 's
tradesecrets andmethods inrelation tothemanufacture of"closures" (American Flange
andManufacturing Co.IncvRheem (Australia) PtyLtd(No.2)[1965] NSWLR 193);
(v) customer listsandinformation concerning theproposed contents ofamailorder
catalogue (Robb vGreen [1995] 2QB1Littlewoods Organisation LtdvHarris [1977]
1WLR 1472); and
(vi) information withsome intrinsic economic value suchasmanuscripts, plotsofplays,
lectures andstock exchange quotation (Duke ofQueensbury vShebbeare [1758]
2Eden 329; Macklin vRichardson [1770] Amb 694Caird vSime [1887] 12App
Cass326,Exchange Telegraph CoLtdvGregory [1896] 1QB147).
Tohavethenecessary element ofsecrecy theinformation neednotbeunpublished. Allof
aprocesses separated features may,forexample, havebeenpublished, orbecapable ofbeing ascertained
byactual inspection byanymember ofthepublic, butifthewhole result hasnotbeenachieved, and
could notbeachieved except bysomeone going through thesame kindofprocess astheowner, the
information willnotfailtoqualify forprotection byreason ofthepublication oftheseparate features.
Itmayderive from amaker inanother country without losing itscharacter, ifitisusedorentitled
tobeused, bytheowner alone inthecountry inwhich theowner operates. There isnosuggestion
oftheneedforinvention. (Gowans J.inAnsell Rubber CoPtyLtdvAllied Rubber Industries CoPty
Ltd[1967] VR37atp.49).
TheAnsell Rubber case(above) isoneofanumber ofcases inAustralia thathasaccepted
thedefinition ofatrade secret which isfound inSection 757oftheUSRestatement ofTorts. Itsets
outa6parttestforconfidential information tobeprotected. Itisinformation:
(i) which isusedinone'sbusiness;IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page4
(ii) which gives oneanopportunity toobtain anadvantage overcompetitors whodonot
know oruseit;
(iii) which issecret, ie.notthecommon knowledge ofthetrade;
(iv) which ismaintained insecrecy bytheowner;
(v) which isofvalue tothecompetitor; and
(vi) which wasacquired atsome expense oreffort byitsowner.
(seealsoReOrganon(Australia)PtyLtdvDepartmentofCommunityServicesandHealth[1987]
13ALD 558; Mense andAmpere Electrical manufacturing CovMilenkovic [1973] VR784
butnotethatinformation doesnotneedtobeofatechnical character Searle Australia Ltdv
Public Interest Advocacy Centre andDepartment ofCommunity Services andHealth [1992]
108ALR 168).
Third parties canberestrained where theinformation wasobtained improperly andinjunctions
havealsobeengranted toprevent copies being made ofthatinformation, andifcopies havealready
beenmade torestrain them from being further copied andtorestrain persons whose possession that
confidential information hascome from themselves inturndivulging orpropagating it(See
Swifden-Eady J.inAshburton vPape [1913] 2Ch469).
Thelevelofsecrecy, andthemeasures necessary fortheholder oftheinformation totakein
theprotection ofthesecret, arematters tobedetermined onthefacts. However, thecases inthevarious
common lawjurisdictions show thatthepossessor ofatradesecret doesnothavetotakeheroic measures
tokeepitsecret; heorshemerely hastotakeallproper andreasonable steps tokeepittohimor
herself (USM Corp vMarston Fasteners corps 204USPQ 233(Mass SupCrt,1979)).
FromtheforegoingitcanbeseenthatAustralianlawprotectsundisclosedinformationasrequired
byArticle 39.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
Patents
1. Pleaseexplainwhetheranyinventions,otherthanthosespecifiedinArticle18(2),arenoteligible
tobepatented under Australian law,notwithstanding thefactthattheinvention satisfies thecriteria
ofbeing novel, involving aninventive step,andbeing useful. Insodoing, please explain themeaning
ofthephrase "isamanner ofmanufacture within themeaning ofSection 6oftheStatute ofMonopolies"
andwhether under thisdefinition anyofthefollowing inventions aredeemed ineligible tobepatented
inAustralia:
(a) process inventions which, inwhole orinpart, consist ofsteps thatareperformed by
acomputer andaredirected byacomputer program;
(b) productinventionsconsistingofelementsofacomputer-implementedinvention,including
inparticular:
(i) machine-readable computer program codestored onatangible medium such
asafloppy disk,computer harddrive orcomputer memory; andIP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page5
(ii) ageneral purpose computer whose novelty overtheprior artarises primarily
duetoitscombination withaspecific computer program;
(c) methods oftreatment ordiagnosis ofhumans oranimals; or
(d) non-naturally occurring microorganisms, plants oranimals produced through some
actofhuman intervention.
Thephrase "isamanner ofmanufacture within themeaning ofSection 6oftheStatute of
Monopolies" isanon-prescriptive definition ofwhat ispatentable. Inessence, caselawdraws the
distinction asbeing thedifference between theuseful artsandthefinearts. With specific reference
tothe5examples raised inthequestion, thesubject matter of(a),(b)(ii), (c)and(d)aredefinitely
patentable. Thesubject matter of(b)(i) isinthecategory ofquestionable, butisinfactcovered by
ourcontributory infringement provisions.
2. Articles 133to140oftheAustralian Patents Actof1990, asamended byPart4ofthePatents
(World Trade Organization Amendments) Act1994, permit theissuance ofcompulsory licences under
patents within Australia under certain circumstances, notably incases where atrade orindustry in
Australia isbeing unfairly prejudiced, Australian demand forthepatented invention isnotbeing met,
orthepatented invention isnotbeing commercially worked within Australia. Theprovisions arenot
differentiated interms oftheirapplication withrespect tothetechnological fieldoftheinvention. Please
explain howthese provisions comply withArticle 31(c) oftheTRIPS Agreement, which specifies that
compulsory licences under patents concerning inventions inthefieldofsemi-conductor technology can
begranted onlyforthepurpose ofpublic non-commercial useortoremedy apractice determined after
judicial oradministrative process tobeanti-competitive.
Thesemi-conductor technology referred tointhesecond partofArticle 31(c) isreferable to
circuit layouts. Itisourunderstanding thatthereisnorequirement thattheprovisions ofSections 133
to140ofthePatents Act1990 bedifferentiated interms oftheir application withrespect tothe
technological fieldoftheinvention.
3. Chapter 17ofthePatents Actof1990, asamended byPart4ofthePatents (World Trade
Organization Amendments) Act1994, permits thegovernment ofAustralia, oritsdesignees, touse
aninvention described inanapplication orinissued patent. Notice istobeprovided assoonaspractical
aftertheusecommences, andremuneration istobeprovided. Withrespect totheso-called Crown
use,please explain:
(a) whether anyoftheconditions specified inArticle 31oftheTRIPS Agreement are
incorporated orapplied inthecontext ofauthorizing Crown useofapatented invention;
(b) howtheprovisions ofArticle 167,which authorize theCrown oritsdesignee under
theauthority ofCrown usetonotonlyusetheinvention buttosellproducts covered
bythepatent tothepublic atlarge, function inpractice, andhowthisauthority can
bereconciled withtheprovisions ofArticle 31;and
(c) howfrequently andunder whatcircumstances Crown useisauthorized inAustralia.
(a) ReArticle 31(a): eachauthorization ofCrown useisnecessarily considered onits
individual merits because under Section 163(3) Crown usecanonlyoccur ifitisnecessary forthe
proper provision ofthose services inAustralia.IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page6
ReArticle 31(b): Crown useisunderstood tobe"public, non-commercial use"; Section 164
requires therightholder tobeinformed promptly.
ReArticle 31(c): seeouranswer to2above.
ReArticle 31(d): exploitation bytheCrown under Section 163isnon-exclusive inallareas.
ReArticle 31(e): Section 163provides thattheusecanbebyaperson authorized inwriting
bytheGovernment -buttheusemuststillbefortheservices oftheGovernment. TheActdoesnot
allow fortherighttoexploit theinvention tobeassigned toaperson fortheirownbenefit.
ReArticle 31(f): Section 163(3) imposes therequirement thattheexploitation isnecessary
fortheproper provision ofservices within Australia.
ReArticle 31(g): asfor(f)above.
ReArticle 31(h): Section 51(xxxi) oftheAustralian Constitution requires thattheterms of
anyacquisition ofproperty bejust.
ReArticle 31(i): anyadministrative decisions under Chapter 17oftheActwould bereviewable
bytheFederal Court ofAustralia under theAdministrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Any
decisions ofacourt offirstinstance areappellable.
ReArticle 31(j): isprovided forbySection 165.
ReArticle 31(k): theexclusions fromArticle 31provided bythisparagraph arenotrelevant
under Australian provision.
ReArticle 31(l): ifexploitation ofaninvention under Section 163necessarily involves
exploitation ofanother invention, clearly theexploitation ofthatother invention willbecovered by
Section 163aswell.
(b) Asindicated intheanswer tothenextquestion, thecircumstances ofanddetailed
arrangements forCrown usearetheresponsibility oftheCrown instrumentality andthepatentee. As
Crown useprovisions arerarely exercised there isnofactual basis available totheAustralian Patent
Office toallow anygeneralization onthepractical functionality ofSection 167. Weareunaware of
anyconcerns withtheoperation ofthese provisions having beenexpressed.
(c) IftheCrown useprovisions were invoked thecasewould bebetween therelevant
instrumentality oftheCrown andthepatentee andwould notinvolve anyoftheadministrative bodies
responsible. Assuchitisdifficult todetermine thefrequency ofuse,though weexpect thishasbeen
minimal.
4. Please indicate howmany compulsory licences onayearly basishavebeengranted inAustralia
since 1January 1993.
Toourknowledge, there havenever beenanycompulsory licences issued under Chapter 17,
norunder thecorresponding provisions oftheprevious Act(although there wereasmall number of
applications under theoldAct).IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page7
5. Please explain howundisclosed information isprotected inAustralia, andthelegal basis for
suchprotection [NOTE: nonotification fromAustralia concerning protection ofundisclosed information
hadbeendistributed bytheWTO Secretariat atthetimethese questions wereprepared].
Please seeanswer onthissubject provided toJapan.
6. Please indicate thenature ofmeasures, ifany,thataretaken byjudicial authorities inAustralia
toprotect theconfidentiality ofundisclosed information (e.g.trade orbusiness secrets) furnished by
aparty tothecourt during legalproceedings, when theinformation hasbeenprovided either toenforce
trade secret rights insuchinformation, orpursuant toother proceedings.
(i) Itisnoted thatthisquestion although relating toconfidential information relates to
theobligation inArticle 42inthecontext oflegalproceedings.
(ii) There areanumber ofways access tomaterial thesubject ofatrade secret might be
subject todisclosure asaresult ofacourt procedure. Forexample, theinformation maybeobtained
astheresult oftheexecution ofanorder forsearch andseizure ofevidence (e.g.Anton Piller Order).
(iii) TheAustralian Courts haveapplied strictguidelines about theexecution ofAnton Piller
orders including requiring undertakings from theapplicant atthetimeofgranting theorder. Even
insuchacase,ifthematerial containing theconfidential information notproperly handled, thedefendant
maycross claim fordamages andother relief, fordisclosure arising outofaccess granted pursuant
totheexecution oftheorder. Thisisaserious risk. Plaintiffs areregularly advised bytheirlegal
advisers totakesteps toensure thatconfidential, orallegedly confidential material, isheldbythe
plaintiff 'ssolicitors rather thattheplaintiff and,intheexecution ofanAnton Piller order thattherespond
mustbegiven theopportunity during thesearch toindicate thosedocuments which theyconsider contain
confidential information soastoensure itssafecustody.
(iv) Confidential information maybedisclosed inastatement ofclaim orother proceeding
particularly through discovery proceedings bothpre-trial andduring thecourse ofatrial.
(v) Inallproceedings inAustralia thereisanundertaking implied nottousethematerials
anddocuments seized foranypurpose other thanthecurrent proceedings. With Anton Piller orders
theundertaking isusually given expressly andthismayalsoberequested inrelation todiscovery
proceedings. Statements ofclaim mayalsobeframed soastoseekanorder forsome protection of
theinformation. Forexample, thestatement ofclaim maylisttheconfidential information inaschedule
forproduction totherespondent "subject towhatever order theCourt deems fitfortheprotection of
theconfidentiality thereof" (SeeAppendix CTheLawofTrade Secrets, R.Dean, theLawBook
Co.1989).
(vi) Inregard todisclosure oncecourt proceedings havebeencommenced, itisthelaw
inAustralia thatdiscovery inanaction, whether ofdocuments oroffacts, havenever beenatlarge
buthasalways beenconfined todocuments orfactsrelevant totheissues between theparties.
(vii) Sofarasdiscoveryisconcernedthereisnocategoryofprivilegebasedonconfidentiality
(asfinally admitted byLordDenning inRiddick vThames Board Mills Ltd[1977] QB881at895-896.
(Seealso-Australian Broadcasting Commission vParish [1980] 43FLR129). Nevertheless, therule
fromthedecidedcasesisthattheconfidentialityoftheinformationcanbeafactorindeterminingwhether
tolimitdisclosure (Seee.g.LordEvershed MRinPrinters andFinishers LtdvHolloway [1961] RPC71
at79.IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page8
(viii) Thesameruleisapplied inrelation toinspection. Inspection maybelimited toexperts
andaparty'slegaladvisers ortoaparticular servant oragent oftheparty. SeeWarner-Lambert Co
vGlaxo Laboratories Ltd[1975] RPC354andthecases citedtherein.
(ix) TheSupreme courts andtheFederal Court alsohavepower toholdproceedings in
camera. InthelawofTrade Secrets, theLawBook co,1990, theauthor, Robert Dean, notes, (at
p.498).
"Under theumbrella ofsecuring justice thereareclasses ofcases where itwillbecome
necessary toallow secret litigation [David Syme andCoLtdvGMH [1984]
2NSWLR 294at300. Thelargest classes ofcases isthatwhere thesubject matter
ofthecases would bedestroyed bypublicity. Thelargest component ofthisclass
comprises cases involving tradesecrets (ScottvScott[1913] AC417Halsbury 'sLaws
ofEngland (4thEdVol10,para705))".
(x) Thereare,therefore,avarietyofwaysinwhichconfidentialinformationcanbeprotected
during proceedings. Theextent towhich acourt willdosowillobviously depend ontheparticular
circumstances ofthecase. Thereported decisions inAustralia donotshow thatthere hasbeenany
clearly identified problem withdisclosure during trial, orintherelevant pleadings.
(xi) Though parties arenaturally reluctant totakeanyrisks withcommercially valuable
andcarefully guarded information, thebroad discretions ofthemore senior courts asallow thecourts
toimpose, astheyseetherequirement, restrictions ontherelease ofinformation tooneorother party.
Inparticular cases experts might beappointed toexamine discovered documents toascertain their
relevance; access mayberestricted toaparties legaladvisers ortooneormore ofthem; aparticularly
employee maybeidentified astheonlyonepermitted access andcopying mayberestricted. Inan
extreme case, proceedings maybeheldincamera. (SeeDean, R.TheLawofTrade Secrets,
Appendix E,TheLawBook Co,1989).
(xii) Suchrestrictions arenotimposed lightly orwithout question. Itistheordinary rule
ofallthecourts thattheirproceedings aretobeconducted publicly andinopenview. (See, e.g.Russell
vRussel [1976] 134CLR 495perGibbs J.at520). Butthecourts recognize asDean J.(later Chief
Justice oftheHighCourt) saidinABCvParish "theresults ofunduly discounting oflegitimate claims
toconfidentiality arelikely toresult indeterrence ofthesubject from having recourse tocourts of
justice". Itisthisbalancing thatisdetermined ineachcasethatcomes before thecourts.
7. Please explain themeasures, ifany,thathavebeenimplemented inAustralia toprotect against
unfair competition those parties thathave provided confidential testorother dataconcerning a
pharmaceutical oragricultural chemical product toAustralian regulatory authorities pursuant toa
request formarketing approval. Please explain howsuchmeasures, ifany,areconsistent withArticle
39.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
AustraliaannouncedinDecember1996itsintentiontointroduceanewregimeofdataexclusivity.
Under thisregime confidential datasubmitted totheTherapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) orthe
National Registration Authority forAgricultural andVeterinary chemicals (NRA) toregister anew
pharmaceutical, agricultural andveterinary chemical product containing anewchemical entity will
beprotected foraperiod offiveyears fromthedateofregistration oftheoriginator product. Legislation
iscurrently being prepared toimplement thenewregime which willbefullyconsistent withArticle 39.3
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thenewlegislation willbenotified totheCouncil forTRIPS when finalized.
8. Article 25oftheCircuit Layouts Actof1989 permits theGovernment ofAustralia togrant
aninvoluntarylicenceunderacertificateofprotectiontoagovernmentagencyorathirdpartyauthorizedIP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page9
bytheGovernment ofAustralia. Article 37.2oftheTRIPS Agreement requires WTO Members that
permit theinvoluntary licensing ofamaskworkrighttoadhere totheconditions concerning involuntary
licences forpatents found inArticle 31(a) to(k).Please explain howtheAustralian actcomplies with
therequirements ofthese Articles oftheTRIPS Agreement.
(i) Ingeneral, please seeAustralia 'sanswers toquestions fromtheEuropean Commission
concerning Section 25oftheCircuit Layouts Act1989.
(ii) Insummary, Section 25oftheCircuit Layout Act1989 complies withthevarious
paragraphs ofArticle 31byreason ofitsapplication foraspecific, orlimited, purpose, thecompulsory
license applies onlywhen allreasonable stepstaken toobtain thelicence oftheowner oftheELRights
hasbeenunsuccessful, theuseissubject toreasonable compensation, andthecompulsion relates only
totheuseofthelayout itself. Importantly, theCircuit Layout Actplaces norestriction ontheEL
Rights being otherwise utilized bytheowner.
Article 31-Other UseWithout Authorization oftheRight Holder
Paragraph 31(a)
(iii) Thisparagraph provides that"authorization ofsuchuseshall beconsidered onits
individual merits". Theparagraph appears tocontemplate asituation where amember country has
abroad statutory licence scheme thatallow foranyuseofalayout bygovernment orathird party
authorized byGovernment, especially sincethereferences to"other use"and"such use"intheparagraph
arenotlimited inanyway.
(iv) Thelicence scheme inSection 25oftheCircuit Layouts Actislimited tousebythe
Commonwealth foractsforthedefence orsecurity ofAustralia which is,byitself, asignificant
limitation. Theindividual merits ofthelicensing issue isfurther satisfied bytherequirement for
"reasonable efforts" tobemade toobtain theauthorization oftheowner oftheELRights. Itisthis
requirement ofreasonable efforts intheprovision inSection 25(1) which ensures thateachcaseisdealt
withonitsindividual merit since whatisreasonable canonlybedetermined having regard tothefacts
ofeachcase.
Paragraph 31(b)
(v) Thisparagraph provides thatagovernment canusealayout design without obtaining
theauthorization oftheowner (prior tothatuse),where efforts havebeenmade toobtain authorization
butsuchefforts havenotbeensuccessful within areasonable period oftime. Where thereisanational
emergency, other circumstances ofextreme urgency orwhere theuseispublic non-commercial the
requirement tomake reasonable efforts toobtain authorization iswaived. Thefinalsentence ofthe
Article refers topublic non-commercial useofpatents (seeparagraph 31(c)) andrequires the
Commonwealth toinform therightholder promptly ofsuchuse.
(vi) TheCircuit Layouts Actcomplies withthisparagraph byplacing limits onthetype
andconditions ofuseoflayout designs bytheCommonwealth. Section 25(1) provides thatanact
performed bytheCommonwealth inrelation toaneligible layout isnotaninfringement oftherights
oftheowner if(a)itisactforthedefence orsecurity ofAustralia and(b)reasonable steps havebeen
taken toobtain thelicence oftheowner onreasonable terms. TheCommonwealth istherefore limited
bytheActtousing layout designs without authorization fordefence orsecurity reasons andthe
reasonableness oftheefforts toobtain consent willinclude atimefactor. Paragraph 31(b) permits
awaiver ofitsrequirements incases ofpublic non-commercial useorextreme urgency bothofwhich
conditions arepotentially applicable toanaction taken fordefence orsecurity. Inthisway,Section 25(2)IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page10
oftheCircuit Layouts Act,permitting authorization aftertheusehascommenced alsofallswithin the
terms oftheTRIPS provision.
Paragraph 31(c)
(vii) Paragraph 31(c)ofTRIPS states that"thescope andduration ofsuchuseshallbelimited
tothepurpose forwhich itwasauthorized". TheArticle alsostates thatinthecaseofsemi-conductor
technology theuse"shall onlybeforpublic non-commercial use". Totheextent thatthisarticle would
apply orArticle 31(b), thedetermining condition oftheuse"forthedefence orsecurity ofAustralia"
applies.
(viii) InSection 25(4) oftheCircuit Layouts Actitisstated thattheterms forthedoing of
anact(bytheCommonwealth) arethose terms agreed between theparties (either before orafterthe
actisdone) orasdetermined bytheFederal Court. Asnoted inAustralia 'sanswers toquestions from
theEConthissection, theusesofacircuit layout bytheCommonwealth under thesection arelimited
tousesthatareauthorized bythestatute. Thatis,forthedefence andsecurity ofAustralia. Itisdifficult
toimagine clearer cases ofpublic non-commercial use.Section 25(5) contemplates theeventual sale
ofarticles containing circuit layouts thatmayhavebeenusedcompulsorily. Thisprovision isnot,
however, animplied consent toutilize theELRights foracommercial purpose. Rather, itprovides
anexpress statutory authority forgood titletopassonthedisposal oftheiteminwhich thecircuit
thesubject oftheELrights resides. Itdoesnotaffect theinitial requirement thattheuseofthe
ELRights must beforadefence forsecurity purpose.
(ix) Inthisway, theActcomplies withparagraph 31(c). Note alsothattheAustralian
Government isnotgranted anyadditional rights tothose inSection 25(4) touseacircuit layout for
apurpose other thandefence andsecurity andsotheintent ofparagraph 31(c) isalsoobserved inthis
way.
Paragraphs 31(d) to31(h)
(x) These paragraphs impose additional constraints ontheuseofacircuit layout, namely
thatanyuseshallbe:non-exclusive,non-assignable,predominantlyforthesupplyofthedomesticmarket,
beliable tobeterminated andthattheowner shallbepaidadequate remuneration.
(xi) TheActdoesnotspecifically mention anyoftheterms ofparagraphs 31(d)-(h) but
thecomments made above inrelation toArticle 31(c) areequally applicable here, especially thatthe
Commonwealth isnotgiven anyexclusive orassignable rightthatwould contravene these Articles.
Noteagain thatexercise oftherightisrelated todefence andsecurity, nottheconduct oftrading or
commercial activity, andissubject toreasonable terms being agreed bytheparties ordetermined by
thejudicial authority specified, namely, theFederal Court ofAustralia
Paragraphs 31(i)and(j)
(xii) These paragraphs provide thatthelegalvalidity ofdecisions relating toauthorization
andremuneration shallbesubject tojudicial review. Section 25(4) oftheActprovides aright of
application totheFederal Court byeither theCommonwealth ortheowner where there isanabsence
ofagreement ontheterms ofuse.Arightofreview isprobably alsoavailable under theAdministrative
Decision (Judicial Review) Act1977 Section 5where itisalleged thecircumstances giving risetothe
exercise oftherighthavenotbeen, orwere not,satisfied.IP/C/W/66/Add.1
Page11
Paragraph 31(k)
(xiii) Thisparagraph makes anexception inthecaseofusebyGovernment where that"use
ispermitted toremedy apractice determined after judicial oradministrative process tobeanti-
competitive". There isnoprovision intheActdealing withusebythegovernment forthispurpose.