Grounds of opposition

These are defined in section 21(1) of the Act:

• Obtaining: the applicant obtained the patent from the person who had the actual right to apply, without the permission of that person.
• Prior publication: The invention claimed in the patent application has been published:
  • in a New Zealand patent specification published within 50 years of the date of filing of the patent application; and/or
  • in any other prior published document not excluded by section 59(1) (section 2 defines “published” as being “made available to the public”).
• Prior claiming: The invention claimed in the patent application has been claimed in a prior New Zealand patent application published on or after the priority date of the patent application.
• Prior use: The invention claimed in the patent application has been used (not including secret use) before the priority date of the patent application.
• Obviousness: The invention claimed in the patent application is obvious i.e. “clearly doesn’t involve an inventive step” with regard to prior publication and/or prior use. Both prior publication and prior use can be used as a basis for obviousness.
• Not an invention: The complete specification of the patent application does not include an invention, i.e. the patent does not claim a manner of new manufacture as defined in section 2.
• Insufficiency: The complete specification of the patent application doesn’t sufficiently describe the invention or the method of performing the invention.
• Not a proper convention application: If the patent application is a convention application (i.e. relies on an overseas priority date under section 7(2)) and the application was not filed within 12 months of the first application for protection.
• In relation to an application for restoration of a patent, where the failure to meet the time requirements of sections 19 and 93 (time to have an application in order for acceptance) was intentional.
• In relation to an application for restoration of a patent, where the application to restore was made with undue delay.

• Extension of time under section 93A (granted by the Commissioner) was unwarranted.