I live in the Victorian capital city of Melbourne, where we have been in ‘Stage 4’ lockdown since 2 August 2020. With just a few permitted exceptions, the wearing of masks is mandatory, we must stay home except for essential activities – which must be carried out within a 5km radius, and may include no more than one hour of exercise per day – and we are subject to a curfew between 8pm and 5am each day. The reason we are allowing ourselves to be subjected to such draconian restrictions is simple. COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease with (as yet) no known cure or vaccine (unless you believe the Russians, which nobody reputable does). The virus kills a significant number of people who contract it, particularly those who are older and/or have existing medical conditions, and there is increasing evidence that it may cause a range of long-term health problems even in those who are relatively young and physically fit. Given this, I have little patience for the opinions of ‘rationalists’ (most of whom, oddly, seem to be privileged middle-aged white men) who argue that the damage caused to the economy by restrictions is too high a price to pay in order to save the lives of a few old folk. Quite aside from the fact that those ‘old folk’ have a lifetime of contributions to society behind them, and are other people’s beloved parents, grandparents, partners, friends, and carers, without a crystal ball we just don’t know what the counterfactual looks like. What we do know, for an absolute fact, is that we can save people from COVID-19. And, while we are making sacrifices to (hopefully) keep deaths in our country down to a few hundred, the world’s (supposedly) most advanced economy is providing us with an object lesson in the consequences of failing to make those sacrifices. If we had the same per capita mortality rate as the US, there would be over 13,000 Australians dead today who are, instead, still alive.
Of course we are paying, and will continue to pay, a high economic price for those lives. Within this cost, it is to be expected that an economic downturn, and the uncertainty created by the COVID pandemic, will have an impact on levels of research, development, and commercialisation, which will, in turn, affect the numbers of patent applications filed. By way of comparison with another recent downturn, the charts below show the numbers of standard and provisional applications filed in Australia over periods encompassing the global financial crisis (GFC), which largely played out between mid 2007 and early 2009. The data indicates that the effect of the GFC on provisional filings – predominantly made by domestic applicants as a first step into the patenting process – was almost immediate. A notable decline in standard application filings lagged the GFC by a couple of years, due to the delays built-in to the patent system through international agreements such as the Paris Convention and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
One aspect of the above numbers that may be concerning to those patent attorneys reliant on a domestic client base is that the 20% of new provisional filings that ‘disappeared’ in the wake of the GFC have never returned, whereas standard application filings (of which 90% originate with foreign applicants) recovered to pre-GFC levels (though not, it must be said, to pre-GFC growth rates) within about five years. We would hope not to see a similar permanent reduction in new domestic filings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, for the sake of Australian innovation and the economy more generally, if not for the livelihoods of a few patent attorneys.
This is why I have been following patent filing numbers since March (see reports also on filings through April, May and June). I now have numbers for July, which show filings to have been surprisingly resilient, despite the economic challenges created by restrictions and uncertainty. Standard patent applications during the month were almost identical to the same period last year, while provisional application filings were significantly up on 2019. While self-represented applicants once again made a substantial contribution to the strong showing of provisional filings, applications filed with professional advice and assistance were also higher in July. Meanwhile, innovation patent filings continue to boom, up by an astonishing 189% compared to July 2019, once again almost entirely driven by Chinese applicants.
Over in New Zealand, monthly filings continued to fluctuate around the same levels as in 2019. The relatively low application numbers, and associated volatility resulting from normal month-to-month variations, makes it difficult to discern whether there is, at this stage, any underlying trend in filing activity.
Read on for this month’s updated charts.
At the time of writing, there are 26,111 patent applications pending and not yet accepted (i.e. awaiting examination, or under examination) at the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ). Of these, 26,029 are subject to the provisions of the current law, the 
In a concerning development, the authority that regulates the Australian and New Zealand IP professions, the 
As I recently reported, 
