Considering only trans-Tasman (i.e. Australian and New Zealand) applicants, the leader by a considerable margin in 2019 was Australia’s ResMed Pty Ltd. And while New Zealanders featured strongly among those trans-Tasman applicants that filed six or more applications in 2019, this was again largely based on provisional filings. The top seven trans-Tasman non-provisional applicants – collectively responsible for 132 filings – were all Australian.
Looking at grants, the top recipient of New Zealand patents in 2019 was Australian (ResMed again), while the remainder of the top 10 was made up of eight US companies and one Swedish company.
The leading patent attorney firm for New Zealand filings was A J Park, which filed a sufficient number of New Zealand applications to displace Madderns from the top 10 list of trans-Tasman attorney firms on a combined count of Australian and New Zealand patent filings.
Top Applicants
The table below lists the top 20 applicants for New Zealand patents in 2019, ranked according to the total number of provisional and complete applications, including national phase entries (NPE) of international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). (As I noted in my previous article, in Australia the term ‘standard’ is typically used in place of ‘complete’, to distinguish between regular 20-year-term patents and second-tier innovation patents, while for New Zealand filings I may use the terms ‘standard’, ‘complete’, and ‘non-provisional’ interchangeably.)| Applicant | Total | Provisional | Complete/NPE |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAGIC LEAP INC (US) | 151 | 0 | 151 |
| ILLUMINA INC (US) | 79 | 0 | 79 |
| RESMED PTY LTD (AU) | 77 | 0 | 77 |
| F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE AG (CH) | 48 | 0 | 48 |
| REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC (US) | 44 | 0 | 44 |
| MICROSOFT TECH LICENSING LLC (US) | 43 | 0 | 43 |
| GENENTECH INC (US) | 42 | 0 | 42 |
| BAYER AG (DE) | 33 | 0 | 33 |
| NOVARTIS AG (CH) | 33 | 0 | 33 |
| ANGEL PLAYING CARDS LTD (JP) | 33 | 0 | 33 |
| XYLECO INC (US) | 32 | 0 | 32 |
| JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV (BE) | 28 | 0 | 28 |
| QINGDAO HAIER JOINT STOCK LTD (CN) | 27 | 0 | 27 |
| BAYER PHARMA AG (DE) | 24 | 0 | 24 |
| ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC (US) | 24 | 0 | 24 |
| AUCKLAND UNISERVICES LTD (NZ) | 24 | 20 | 4 |
| PFIZER INC (US) | 23 | 0 | 23 |
| SEATTLE GENETICS INC (US) | 23 | 0 | 23 |
| GROW SOLUTIONS TECH LLC (US) | 23 | 0 | 23 |
| AMGEN INC (US) | 22 | 0 | 22 |
There are some notable differences in the make up of this list, as compared with the top applicants in Australia in 2019. While telecommunications and technology companies – including OPPO (China), LG Electronics (South Korea), Qualcomm (US), Huawei (China), Apple (US), Samsung (South Korea), and Ericsson (Sweden) – featured in the Australian list, pharmaceutical and medical technology (medtech) companies are more prominent among top filers in New Zealand.
The top filer in New Zealand is US-based spatial computing start-up Magic Leap, Inc, which placed 12th on the corresponding Australian list, and actually filed more applications in New Zealand (151) than in Australia (116).
Australian medtech company ResMed Pty Ltd, which filed 37 applications in Australia in 2019 – well outside the top 30 – placed third on New Zealand filings with 77 applications. On the other hand, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd (FPH), which was the only New Zealand company to make the top 30 applicants in Australia (with 72 applications in 2019) does not appear in the New Zealand top 20, and in fact filed no New Zealand applications in 2019. A closer look at its Australian applications reveals that they were all either divisionals based on earlier filings, or national phase entries of PCT applications that claimed priority from US provisional applications. This suggests that FPH has little or no interest in protecting its inventions in New Zealand, and that any completely new applications it may have filed in 2019 would have been further US provisionals, and thus not publicly visible.
Top Trans-Tasman (AU/NZ) Applicants
The table below lists all of the trans-Tasman (i.e. Australian and New Zealand) applicants that filed a total of six or more applications in New Zealand in 2019.| Applicant | Total | Provisional | Complete/NPE |
|---|---|---|---|
| RESMED PTY LTD (AU) | 77 | 0 | 77 |
| AUCKLAND UNISERVICES LTD (NZ) | 24 | 20 | 4 |
| LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT LTD (NZ) | 15 | 12 | 3 |
| SOLARJOULE IP HOLDINGS LTD (NZ) | 15 | 15 | 0 |
| ASSA ABLOY NEW ZEALAND LTD (NZ) | 14 | 7 | 7 |
| PITNEY PHARMACEUTICALS PTY LTD (AU) | 13 | 0 | 13 |
| TNBT HOLDINGS PTY LTD (AU) | 9 | 0 | 9 |
| SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC AUST PTY LTD (AU) | 9 | 0 | 9 |
| BOTANIX PHARMACEUTICALS LTD (AU) | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY (AU) | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| SOUL MACHINES LTD (NZ) | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| CHEP TECH PTY LTD (AU) | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| JOHN MICHAEL LOVELOCK (NZ) | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| PGG WRIGHTSON SEEDS LTD (NZ) | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| GALLAGHER GROUP LTD (NZ) | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| SIMON PAUL MCDONALD (NZ) | 7 | 7 | 0 |
| FISHER & PAYKEL APPLIANCES LTD (NZ) | 7 | 7 | 0 |
| FLEXIDRILL LTD (NZ) | 7 | 6 | 1 |
| AGRESEARCH LTD (NZ) | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| ASSA ABLOY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (AU) | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| DAVID GEORGE WARD (NZ) | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| LINCOLN UNIVERSITY (NZ) | 6 | 5 | 1 |
| WAIKATOLINK LTD (NZ) | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| CSIRO (AU) | 6 | 0 | 6 |
While New Zealand resident applicants make up the majority of this list, in many cases this is due to their use of domestic provisional applications in order to obtain an early priority date for new inventions. The quality of these provisional applications, and whether they will ever progress to complete applications that may result in granted patent rights, is unclear – particularly in the case of individual applicants and small businesses. If ranked according to only the number of complete applications filed, the top seven trans-Tasman applicants would all be Australian. Unsurprisingly, Australian residents do not file provisional applications in New Zealand, considering that Australia has its own provisional application system.
Top Patent Recipients
The table below lists the top 10 recipients of New Zealand patents in 2019. No New Zealand resident company or individual appears on this list – the leading New Zealand patent recipients, with three granted patents apiece, were Nine IP Ltd, Zinniatek Ltd, and AgResearch Ltd.| Applicant | Grants |
|---|---|
| RESMED PTY LTD (AU) | 60 |
| DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC (US) | 32 |
| XYLECO INC (US) | 22 |
| GILEAD SCIENCES INC (US) | 17 |
| ELI LILLY & CO (US) | 16 |
| ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC (US) | 16 |
| QUALCOMM INC (US) | 15 |
| MAGIC LEAP INC (US) | 15 |
| TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON PUBL (SE) | 12 |
| BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ANIMAL HEALTH USA INC (US) | 12 |
Interestingly, while telecommunications technology companies Qualcomm (US) and Ericsson (Sweden) did not feature among the top applicants in 2019, both made the top 10 patent recipients. Indeed, other than Resmed and Xyleco Inc (and, to a lesser extent, Illinois Tool Works Inc), which each filed and received comparable numbers of applications/patents in 2019, there seems to be very little correlation between the top applicants, and the companies that have pursued significant numbers of past applications through to grant. We might expect, however, that Magic Leap will move up the patent recipients chart in future years.
Leading Attorney Firms
The following table lists the top 20 attorney firms for 2019, ranked according to total numbers of New Zealand patent filings, across both provisional and complete applications. A break-down of the numbers of filings by each firm on behalf of New Zealand, Australian, and other (foreign) applicants is also shown.| Attorney Firm | Total | NZ | AU | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A J PARK | 949 | 136 | 4 | 809 |
| SPRUSON & FERGUSON | 625 | 2 | 83 | 540 |
| DAVIES COLLISON CAVE | 569 | 1 | 48 | 520 |
| BALDWINS | 414 | 52 | 2 | 361 |
| JAMES & WELLS | 350 | 122 | 78 | 150 |
| PIZZEYS | 349 | 0 | 1 | 348 |
| FB RICE | 310 | 1 | 24 | 285 |
| PHILLIPS ORMONDE FITZPATRICK | 198 | 1 | 29 | 168 |
| WRAYS | 194 | 1 | 19 | 174 |
| SHELSTON IP | 187 | 0 | 14 | 173 |
| GRIFFITH HACK | 183 | 0 | 38 | 145 |
| FPA PATENT ATTORNEYS | 171 | 0 | 27 | 144 |
| HENRY HUGHES IP | 143 | 9 | 0 | 134 |
| WATERMARK | 124 | 0 | 11 | 113 |
| PIPERS PATENT ATTORNEYS | 116 | 45 | 0 | 71 |
| ELLIS TERRY | 98 | 44 | 2 | 52 |
| CATALYST IP | 90 | 53 | 5 | 32 |
| MADDERNS | 70 | 1 | 16 | 53 |
| CREATEIP | 63 | 40 | 0 | 23 |
| HOULIHAN2 | 59 | 0 | 8 | 51 |
The New Zealand-based firms on the list – A J Park, Baldwins, James & Wells, Henry Hughes IP, Pipers, Ellis Terry, Catalyst IP and CreateIP – are easy to spot by their relatively larger numbers of filings on behalf of domestic applicants. (Davies Collison Cave has a couple of attorneys based in New Zealand, while Pipers has a couple based in Australia, although neither stands out as being any more ‘trans-Tasman’ in filing patterns as a result.) Unsurprisingly, A J Park comfortably tops the rankings – it is by far the largest patent practice in New Zealand, employing 36 patent attorneys (according to the Register maintained by the Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Board), compared with 19 at James & Wells and 13 at Baldwins.
Australian firms’ New Zealand filings are primarily made on behalf of their Australian and foreign clients. It is likely that, in many cases, applications filed in New Zealand by Australian firms would correspond with equivalent applications also filed in Australia – it is convenient for an applicant to instruct a single firm to file in both countries. Of course, this cuts both ways. The table below shows the top 20 ‘trans-Tasman’ firms, ranked according to combined Australian and New Zealand filings. The larger New Zealand firms on the list – A J Park and James & Wells – file a higher proportion of Australian applications, relative to their New Zealand filings, than any of the top Australian firms do New Zealand applications, relative to their Australian filings. Perhaps this makes sense – New Zealand is a smaller market than Australia, so it may be more likely that a company instructing a firm to file in New Zealand also wishes to file in Australia than vice versa.
| Attorney Firm | NZ Filings | AU Filings | Total Filings |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPRUSON & FERGUSON | 625 | 5183 | 5808 |
| DAVIES COLLISON CAVE | 569 | 3444 | 4013 |
| GRIFFITH HACK | 183 | 2881 | 3064 |
| FB RICE | 310 | 2529 | 2839 |
| PIZZEYS | 349 | 2118 | 2467 |
| PHILLIPS ORMONDE FITZPATRICK | 198 | 2218 | 2416 |
| SHELSTON IP | 187 | 1882 | 2069 |
| FPA PATENT ATTORNEYS | 171 | 1681 | 1852 |
| A J PARK | 949 | 571 | 1520 |
| WATERMARK | 124 | 1098 | 1222 |
| WRAYS | 194 | 882 | 1076 |
| MADDERNS | 70 | 971 | 1041 |
| JAMES & WELLS | 350 | 236 | 586 |
| IP GATEWAY | 42 | 323 | 365 |
| MICHAEL BUCK IP | 29 | 305 | 334 |
| COTTERS | 20 | 291 | 311 |
| ALLENS | 37 | 271 | 308 |
| HOULIHAN2 | 59 | 224 | 283 |
| GOLJA HAINES & FRIEND | 10 | 272 | 282 |
| BAXTER IP | 10 | 241 | 251 |
Conclusion – New Zealand and Australia, Similar But Different!
Prior to obtaining and analysing New Zealand patent filing data, I had assumed that New Zealand would look much like a ‘smaller version’ of Australia, from a patenting perspective. As my previous article showed, there is some truth to this in relation to domestic applicants, although New Zealand residents seem, if anything, to be even less enthusiastic about protecting their innovations via the patent system – or paying for professional advice and assistance to do so – than Australians.Another similarity is that the top country of origin for patent applicants in Australia and New Zealand is the US, making up nearly 45% of all applicants in both countries in 2019. US applicants accounted for 10 of the top 20 in Australia, and 11 of the top 20 in New Zealand. However, while second and third places in New Zealand were taken in 2019 by New Zealand and Australian applicants, in Australia they were taken by Australian and Chinese applicants. Chinese companies’ interest in obtaining patent protection in New Zealand remains significantly lower, with Chinese applicants ranking eighth (below the Swiss, but above the French).
And despite having similar proportions of applicants filing from the US, there is very little overlap between the top US-based applicants in New Zealand and Australia. More generally, obtaining patent protection in Australia appears to be of greater interest to major foreign telecommunications, technology, and consumer goods companies, whereas pharmaceutical, medtech, and biotech companies feature more prominently among top filers in New Zealand.
Tags: New Zealand, Patent analytics
0 comments:
Post a Comment