01 December 2025
Australia and New Zealand share a common legal heritage — both tracing their patent systems back to the Statute of Monopolies (1623) — but over time, the two jurisdictions have taken different paths.
For innovators filing in both countries, understanding these differences can mean the difference between smooth prosecution and costly delays. Here’s a practical overview of how the two systems compare.
Deadlines for Acceptance
In Australia, applicants have 12 months from the first examination report to place an application in order for acceptance. There’s no fixed deadline for responding to the report itself, but responses must be lodged early enough for the examiner to act within that 12-month window — which cannot be extended, even if the delay is on the Patent Office’s side.
In New Zealand, the same 12-month acceptance period applies (the “section 71 period”), but the system is more flexible. A 6-month response deadline applies for each examination report, and extensions may be granted if there’s delay by the Commissioner. If IPONZ takes longer than 20 working days to issue a subsequent report, the deadline is automatically extended by the extra days of delay.
Divisional Applications
In Australia, a divisional can be filed at any point while the parent application is pending — and up to 3 months after acceptance. The system even allows “daisy-chaining” of divisionals to maintain pendency throughout the patent term.
In New Zealand, the rules are stricter: a divisional must be filed within 5 years of the filing date or before acceptance of the parent — whichever comes first. This 5-year limit makes early examination requests critical.
Expedited Examination
Both countries participate in the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) and bilateral PPH programs with the EPO.
However, Australia takes a more flexible approach to expedited examination. IP Australia accepts requests based on commercial or infringement concerns, and on “cleantech” grounds.
By contrast, IPONZ sets a higher bar — reasons like “commercialisation opportunities” or “potential infringement risk” are not considered sufficient for acceleration.
Medical and Diagnostic Claims
-
Australia allows method-of-treatment claims for humans and animals.
-
New Zealand allows treatment claims only for non-human animals — human treatment methods are excluded by statute.
-
For diagnostics, Australia allows both in vivo and in vitro methods, while New Zealand restricts diagnostic claims to tests performed outside the body.
Other Key Distinctions
-
Swiss-style claims: Allowed in both jurisdictions for human treatments, but New Zealand excludes non-human use.
-
Omnibus claims: Prohibited in Australia (unless necessary), still permitted in New Zealand.
-
Double patenting: Both offices apply similar rules — it only applies to claims that are substantially the same, and it’s not a ground for invalidity after grant.
-
Best method: Still required in both countries — a unique feature not found in many other jurisdictions.
-
Excess claim fees: Recently introduced in both countries. In Australia, fees apply above 20 claims; in New Zealand, above 30 claims.
What This Means for Applicants
The two systems share the same foundations but operate differently in practice. Timing, procedural detail, and claim strategy can all make a real difference in outcome — especially when managing portfolios across both countries.
Protect your innovation across borders.
Whether you’re filing in Australia, New Zealand, or globally, IP Solved can help you manage your patent strategy seamlessly across jurisdictions. Our attorneys handle both systems daily — ensuring your filings stay compliant, cost-effective, and strategically aligned.
