In its 2020 IP Report, IP Australia introduced a novel measure of patent application filing intensity to identify top applicants – namely, the number of ‘original’ applications filed, excluding any divisional applications. For the uninitiated, divisional applications are patent applications that are based on subject matter that is ‘divided out’ from previously filed applications (typically termed ‘parent’ applications), as distinct from ‘original’ applications that comprise new content filed for the very first time. I took issue with the ‘original applications’ metric, on the basis that I did not consider there to be any coherent or logical basis for simply ignoring divisional applications when comparing applicant activity. My views have not changed significantly over the intervening months.
It is certainly true that not all divisional applications are created equal. At one end of the spectrum there are divisionals filed primarily as a way to buy additional examination time, with the parent application being allowed to lapse. To distinguish these kinds of divisionals we can call them ‘continued examination’ applications. At the other extreme, there are divisional applications that are filed for the primary purpose for which they exist – to enable an applicant to obtain a patent for a distinct (second or subsequent) invention disclosed, but not claimed, in the original application – where the original application typically goes on to be granted, while the divisional proceeds independently.
Within the latter category of divisionals, there are also degrees of ‘independence’. Sometimes the invention claimed in a divisional application is closely related to that of the original application. For example, it might be substantially the same invention, where the applicant is seeking a different (e.g. broader) scope of protection. In many cases, however, the invention claimed in a divisional application is distinct from the original invention. There are numerous reasons why an applicant may end up disclosing multiple inventions in a single initial filing, either intentionally or unintentionally, and a discussion of all of those reasons is beyond the scope of this article. But regardless of how it comes about, such an initial filing is best viewed as equivalent to a ‘bunch’ of applications, all of which are just as entitled to be counted as if they had been filed separately on the same day.
It is difficult to identify the purpose of each divisional application, other than by drilling down and comparing what is actually claimed against the parent application from which it has been divided. However, some information can be gleaned from the eventual fate of the parent application. For example, if the parent lapses without ever being accepted, it might be inferred that the divisional was filed for the purpose of continuing examination of the claims. Conversely, if the parent application is accepted, then it is more likely that the divisional application was filed to pursue claims to a further invention, or to an alternative scope of the original invention.
To get an initial idea of the way in which applicants use divisional applications in Australia, I have analysed the outcomes for parent applications since 2002. Over this period, divisional applications have become considerably more ‘popular’, with the number of divisional filings increasing more than threefold, compared with an overall increase in standard application filings of just 30%. Most of this growth occurred between 2010 and 2016, with a slight decline in divisional applications from 2018. Over time, around 70% of parent applications have been accepted, indicating that the majority of divisionals are not filed merely for the purpose of continuing examination of the original application.
