Complete Patents


Complete patent applications may be filed in Australia or overseas, either in association with a provisional patent application or filed free standing, as first instance, applications. Complete patent applications must be filed within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional patent application to maintain the priority date of the earlier filed application. International (PCT) Patent Applications (which are one type of complete application) may also be filed at this stage and are discussed separately here.

Complete Patents

Complete Patent Applications

In Australia, a new complete patent application may be filed in the form a standard patent application. It is noted that new innovation patent applications can no longer generally be filed. Innovation patent applications are discussed separately here. The text below relates to standard complete patent appwlications only.

Additionally, when a complete/standard patent application is filed directly overseas, for example filing a standard patent application in the US or China (standard patents in the USA are called “utility patents”), claiming priority from an earlier filed provisional patent application, we generally refer to these applications as convention applications. This is because these applications rely on an international convention to claim the priority date of the provisional patent application.

A standard patent application has a patent term of 20 years. Standard applications are published after 18 months from the earliest priority date. This means all of the information in the patent specification will become public knowledge.

Our comments below are focused on Australian law. However, it is worthwhile to keep in mind that most jurisdictions, such as the US and China, have generally similar requirements.

To achieve a granted or issued standard patent, your patent application will need to be examined by the Patent Office. During examination the Patent Office will conduct a prior art search, which usually includes earlier filed patents, and will make an assessment as to whether your invention is novel and includes an inventive step in view of any identified prior art. The Patent Office will also assess whether your application adequately describes your invention to ensure the patent protection you may obtain is fair given the level of description you have provided. There are also a few more criteria for patentability however we won’t go into it here but are happy to discuss, if you would like to know more.

Novelty & Inventive Step

Novelty is relatively straight forward and requires that your invention, as claimed in the patent, includes at least one new feature or a combination of features which are not shown in the prior art. Such prior art may be a prior patent which was published prior to the filing of your patent applications. However, sometimes the prior art may be a magazine, website or even your own prior publication or use.

Inventive step is a little more complex – but basically requires your invention, as claimed in the patent, to include a feature or combination of features which are considered to be non-obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field of technology. In assessing inventive step, more than one prior art document may be combined, to assert that an invention lacks an inventive step.

In practice, it is often found that if your invention is novel and includes at least some advantage or function which is different to the prior art then there is a good chance the invention will be considered to exhibit an inventive step. However, if you feel your invention really is more of an incremental improvement then you may wish to consider alternative IP rights such as a registered design.

The invention as claimed is also required to be fully described and supported by the description.  In other words, your patent application will need to clearly and comprehensively describe your invention in a manner which would allow another skilled person to work the invention with only a minimal amount of trial and experimentation. In essence, the law says that you can’t be rewarded with a patent unless you have described the invention in manner which will be later useful to the greater public after your patent has lapsed or expired.


What our clients say

As I move into consultancy, I would like to acknowledge your part in assisting WEARX achieve its IP management plan objectives. We moved our portfolio for a large Sydney based Patent Attorney firm in mid-2013 to Caska IP – and I’m pleased to say this has paid off. Your dedicated approach to finding the best way to provide us with appropriate IP protection in challenging market conditions, has helped us achieve commercial security and good management. In summary, your service level and cost base has exceeded our expectations.

Jerry Hoslin, Director & Founder, WearX

I have been involved in business consultancy for over 25 years. This has involved launching new businesses, ideas, products as well as assisting existing businesses to expand. In that time I have experienced many start ups and dealt with a large range of Intellectual Property. Andrew Caska, Principal Patent Attorney of Caska IP, has recently provided his services to one of my clients and we worked closely to formalise important patents and trade marks. His understanding of the invention, his work and timely delivery were all first class and we are very happy with the outcomes.

Grant Harms, Business Consultant,

Caska IP has been more than supportive in protecting Automed Pty Ltd IP for the agricultural and medical industry. In working with IP& we have developed a clear IP strategy for patents and trademarks for our products, for the Australian market and the international market. We are more than happy with their dedication and level of service and would recommend them to any small or large organisation

David Edwards, CEO & Founder, Automed Pty Ltd

As an individual inventor, I set out to find a Patent Attorney service that was accessible and reasonably priced to assist in lodging my first patent application. I found Caska IP to be not only affordable and accessible, but highly professional and attentive to my needs and requirements. Caska IP worked with me to assist in refining my idea and expressing its unique qualities. I highly recommend Caska IP to the individual inventor.

Lester Walters, Inventor, QUAD R&D Pty Ltd

I was relatively unaware of what was needed and admit to being a bit nervous. Your perception and interpretation of what I was trying to achieve gave me great comfort. On receipt of the initial draft I was impressed with the professional presentation and the attention to detail with little alteration being required. You may rest assured that I will be using Caska IP for future projects (of which I have several) after this one is put to bed.

John Plumridge, Inventor

Case Studies

Client Stories, Interesting Inventions & More...

Contact a patent lawyer in sydney

Our Offices


Suits 6.01, 6/201 Kent Street,
Sydney, 2000
(02) 9191 7401


Ground Floor, 2 Dick Street,
Newcastle West, 2302
(02) 4040 9810

Contact Us

Let’s get in touch!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Patent Attorney Sydney and Newcastle Australia