Commerce-Amendment-Bill-IP-exceptions-30-4-

2 Executive summary 2.1 The Law Society considers that the removal of the intellectual property exceptions in the Commerce Act could have significant negative effects when the impact of such removal is combined with the impact of: (a) recent changes to the Commerce Act (namely the increased scope of the prohibition on cartel conduct under section 30 in force since 2017, and the criminalisation of. [...] 2.6 We have set out below the implications of: (a) first, the removal of section 45 against the background of the recent amendment to section 30, and we suggest an amendment to the wording of section 45 to address issues arising from the settlement of intellectual property litigation since the amendment to section 30 in 2017; 2 (b) secondly, the removal of section 36(3) against the background of t. [...] 8 Hypothetical example 4 8.1 The following example appears in the ACCC’s guidelines relating to the impact of the repeal of the IP exception in section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.11 Firm A is a steel manufacturing company that owns a patent over the only method of producing a particular high-strength, low-weight steel. [...] 11.11 In the case of this example, the problem has arisen through the expansion of the definition of cartel conduct in 2017 without appreciation of the impact of this on common forms of settlement agreements in intellectual property litigation. [...] Clause 14 – (proposed repeal of section 36(3) and cross-heading replaced) 13 Background to the proposed removal of the IP exception in section 36(3) – the reform of the test for misuse of market power 13.1 The proposed reform of section 36 in the Bill would prohibit conduct by a firm with substantial market power that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening power in a m.