Intellectual Property (Amendment) Bill
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. This Bill amends how intellectual property rights are registered in Singapore. This strengthens our position as a global IP hub and brings us closer to Singapore's IP Strategy 2030.
I am sure Minister Edwin Tong will be glad to know I have three quick fire points of clarification.
First, can Minister clarify when a Breeder’s test should be submitted when registering a new plant variety? The new section 18A of the Plant Varieties Protection Act phrases this as a voluntary option for applicants. This could create uncertainty whether or not to expend resources on the test. This is especially relevant as Breeder’s tests may sometimes take several planting seasons. Clarity will save applicants time and resources.
Second, will the Ministry clarify the principles for interpreting a disclaimer under the Registered Designs Act? The new section 30A only states that the rights are "restricted accordingly". This does not appear to consider that disclaimers may also expand the rights of a registered design. For example, can a disclaimer as to colour expand the protection to all designs of that type regardless of colour?
Lastly, our IP Strategy 2030 can play an important role in protecting the environment and fighting climate change. Innovation and technology has the potential to help us lead more sustainable lives and adapt to a changing world. I would like to ask the Minister to consider updating our IP strategy to include a focus on promoting sustainability innovation in Singapore.
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, I thank both Mr Ng as well Assoc Prof Jamus for their support of the Bill.
Let me try and deal with it, in Mr Ng's words "quick fire fashion" response. Mr Ng asked about a breeder's test and also about the principles that will apply for interpreting a disclaimer. I will deal with these two points first and touch on sustainability issue later on.
The new section 18A of the Plant Varieties Protection Act introduces an additional mode of examination. This involves the breeder or another person, organisation or entity acceptable to the Registrar of Plant Varieties in IPOS, or the Examiner. This is known as the breeder’s test which Mr Ng referred to a moment ago. Mr Ng asked when a breeder’s test should be done, so that applicants would be clear when it would be necessary for them to expend the time and resources to do the test.
Sir, to qualify for plant variety protection, a candidate plant variety must, among other criteria, be: (a) distinct; (b) uniform; and (c) stable. These are known as the "DUS criteria". Whether a candidate plant variety meets the DUS criteria is established at examination.
Currently, the Registrar may either appoint external experts, as I mentioned earlier, as examiners to conduct examination, including the tests for the DUS criteria, or utilise an existing examination report with results on the DUS criteria, issued by a foreign examiner from an approved country.
The new breeder’s test mode will give the applicant another manner in which the application can proceed. So, breeders can now opt to perform the required tests by themselves, or to directly engage someone else recognised by the Registrar or the appointed Examiner to do so, before submitting the results to IPOS. IPOS will conduct further consultations with stakeholders on procedural details before implementing the new breeder’s test.
The second item for clarification by Mr Ng relates to the new section 30A of the Registered Designs Act (RDA). This relates to the disclaiming of rights in relation to a specified feature of a design. Mr Ng sought clarification on the principles for interpreting a disclaimer under the RDA.
IPOS’ approach to disclaimers under the RDA takes reference from our trade marks regime, and adopts the same intent and understanding as to the effect of disclaimers.
When applying for registered design protection, an applicant may identify what they wish to protect by providing a representation and description of their design, and if necessary, by clarifying which parts of that design they are not seeking protection for.
The intent in providing applicants with the option to make disclaimers is so that applicants can specify which features of a design they do not wish to protect.
So, the protection conferred on a registered design will include the features that have been described and represented, whilst excluding any features that have been disclaimed. Therefore, a disclaimer should only reduce the features that are protected under the registered design.
Next, let me turn to Mr Ng's third point on Singapore’s IP strategy and how it can support sustainability innovation and contribute to our fight against climate change.
Sir, climate change is not only an urgent global issue. It is an existential challenge for us in Singapore as a small island. We must get creative and pioneer technological and policy solutions for sustainable development.
Intellectual property (IP) is a useful tool to drive and support innovation, including innovation in clean technologies.
What we can do, and have done, is to help accelerate the pace of innovation by facilitating: (a) better support from our IP regime for the development and use of emerging technologies; (b) technology transfer from the public sector to the private sector to expedite the introduction of new innovations to the market; and finally, (c) faster protection to benefit innovators working in fields with short technology life cycles.
In my opening speech, I mentioned the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, or SIPS 2030. Part of our commitment under SIPS is to support technological advances through policy reviews. So, for instance, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned the new rules that were introduced last November as part of the Copyright Act 2021 to clearly permit computational data analysis. Future reviews will continue to take into account emerging clean technologies and, certainly, future reviews on a broader point will also take into account what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said about AI and machine learning. All of these are developments that continue, they evolve and, over time, new changes will mean that we might need new rules. So, we are committed to ensuring that our regime, as a whole, given that we are dealing with a high technology, cutting edge space, we will have to continue to evolve to meet these changes.
Another commitment under SIPS is to increase enterprise access to publicly-funded IP, including for innovations that can benefit our healthcare and sustainability efforts.
Unlocking the fruits of public sector research will benefit our businesses, even as their work in bringing research to the market helps realise the potential of these innovations.
And, finally, the Singapore IP Fast Track programme, introduced in 2020, expedites the processing of IP applications – whether they are patents, trade marks and registered designs, they can move from application to protection in as fast as six, three and one month respectively. That is very quick by international standards. And the sooner and quicker we are able to do this, the more confidence an innovator will have in the system that it will be able to register and protect its inventions.
This reduction in the time needed to acquire protection benefits innovation in fields with short product life cycles in particular, and facilitates the rapid commercialisation and proliferation of new technologies which may include green technologies.
Sir, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also spoke about how we might look at and review the IP regime and how we might want to be more circumscribed and, as I heard him say, reduce the scope and breadth of trade mark applications and recognition because of the need to ensure that there will be more competition for the incumbent's space.
Sir, the point really is quite the converse. A strong IP system that recognises invention, protects innovation is one that will promote innovation and promote this space. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about having more competition for the incumbents, but I will venture to suggest that if we had no IP protection or less IP protection, then in fact the space for the incumbents to be in Singapore will be far less ideal. And you will find that incumbents will take their innovations and inventions elsewhere where they can apply for and obtain trade mark protection.
In terms of competition, I would say that competing goods can actually be sold. There is no bar to that. It is just that you cannot misrepresent the basis or the source of your product. So, competition is not stifled but innovation is protected under our current regime.
Sir, having said all that, the point I made earlier about constantly evolving, constantly having to adapt and react to changes in this space remains true. We will not rest on our laurels. We will continue to ensure that our IP system fosters innovation, promotes commercialisation – and that includes in spaces like in green technologies – and helps new ideas, new innovators realise their potential.
Once again, I thank Members who have spoken – both Mr Ng and Prof Jamus – and support the Bill.
In summary, this Bill is part of our process, our continual process and efforts to ensure that our IP office and our regime and system that we use, and very often it is not just about the laws but about how they are implemented in practice, what is the procedure like, how quick can we do it, how fast is the turnaround time and how efficient can we deal with applications. All of this is part of our efforts to ensure an efficient and a business-friendly environment. This in turn helps our companies, innovators and inventors protect their IP and turn their innovations into a competitive edge and advantage.
MinLaw and IPOS will continue to work to review, update and improve Singapore’s IP regime. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move.
Source: Hansard
