For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.
Here is a model extract for a LAWCOMM 785 letter of advice at the University of Auckland: a patent practice scenario in which a client wants to challenge a competitor’s pending applications in New Zealand and Australia. The full brief belongs to the University of Auckland question hub (the dedicated question page is still to be added). For the reasoning behind each choice, read our blog on how to challenge a patent application in New Zealand and Australia.
This is study guidance, not legal advice. The extract shows structure, tone and the kind of issue-spotting that earns marks. It covers part of the letter only, and it is no substitute for your own research and your own conclusions.
LAWCOMM 785 letter of advice: summary and recommendation
To: General Counsel, VertiDynamics Inc. Date: 15 October 2026. Re: EvoLift’s Australian and New Zealand patent applications and the SkyLynx programme.
You asked whether VertiDynamics should challenge EvoLift’s applications, and what they mean for your own filings. My short answer is yes in New Zealand, and “prepare but wait” in Australia.
The New Zealand application is accepted and its opposition window is already running. Acceptance was published on 25 September 2026, and any person may oppose within three months of publication, which on its face ends on 25 December 2026.1 That date falls on a public holiday, so I would plan to file well before it and not rely on how the day is counted. The Australian application is still under examination, so no opposition clock has started, but a low-cost route to put prior art in front of the examiner exists now.2
My recommendation has four parts.
- Instruct New Zealand patent attorneys now to prepare an opposition to NZ 794512, and diarise a protective extension request in case the evidence is not ready.
- In Australia, watch the file for acceptance and keep the strongest material back for an opposition, using a third-party notice only if the timing or the examiner’s approach makes it worthwhile.
- Treat the October 2019 San Francisco investor meeting as the most dangerous fact in the file, because it is your own disclosure.
- Do not file anything that commits VertiDynamics to an argument on the VertiCon video until we know when EvoLift filed its international application.
Two points are unsettled or fact-dependent: whether EvoLift can disregard its June 2019 conference disclosure under a grace period, and whether the October 2019 meeting was a public disclosure at all.
Options in New Zealand
New Zealand offers three formal routes against an accepted application. Each is a challenge on validity, and I have kept the grounds brief because this letter does not argue the merits.
| Action | Deadline | Forum | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opposition to grant | Three months from publication of acceptance (25 September 2026), so 25 December 2026 on its face; limited extensions are available if requested within the original period1 | Commissioner of Patents (IPONZ), appeal to the High Court | Open to any person; inter partes, so we can file evidence and test EvoLift’s; stops grant if it succeeds | Visible to EvoLift; costs and management time; short window to build evidence |
| Re-examination | Request can be made after acceptance, before or after grant3 | IPONZ examiners | Cheaper in outline; ex parte, so EvoLift sees less of our hand | We drop out once the request is filed; no control over the outcome or the amendments EvoLift offers |
| Revocation after grant | Any time after grant4 | Commissioner (IPONZ), appeal to the High Court | Keeps the option open if the window is missed; same invalidity grounds | Patent is already in force; slower to a result; EvoLift can amend defensively |
The grounds in an opposition include that the invention is not a patentable invention under section 14 of the Patents Act 2013 (which is where novelty and inventive step sit), lack of entitlement, specification defects, fraud or misrepresentation, secret use in New Zealand, and illegality.1 Our case is a section 14 case.
The prior art matters differently here than in Australia. The NZ claim adds battery modules housed in the tilting wing, so the VertiCon video (tilting ducted-fan wing, “fan-out” redistribution) does not obviously disclose every feature. The 2018 Chinese utility model, which places batteries in the wing of a fixed-wing UAV, supplies the missing piece. The argument is therefore inventive step, combining the video or the 2017 article with the utility model, and it is a judgement call. I would describe our prospects as reasonable but not strong, and I would say so plainly to the board.
New Zealand also lets any person file a written assertion on novelty and inventive step, but only between publication and acceptance.3 That door has closed for NZ 794512.
Options in Australia
EvoLift’s Australian claim 1 is broader, with no battery limitation. On the facts you gave, the June 2019 VertiCon video and the 2016 US patent are directly relevant to it. The 3 April 2026 examination report raised clarity objections only, so no prior art has been considered yet.
| Action | Deadline | Forum | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third-party notice of matters affecting validity (s 27) | After publication and until three months after acceptance is advertised2 | IP Australia examiner | Low cost; open to any person; no commitment to a full proceeding | One-way, with no right to respond; limited to novelty and inventive step; may let EvoLift amend or divide around the art |
| Opposition to grant (s 59) | Three months from advertisement of acceptance5 | Commissioner’s delegate; appeal to the Federal Court | Full evidence and hearing; wide grounds, including novelty, inventive step and support | Cannot start until acceptance; costs recovery is limited, in practice; EvoLift is alerted |
| Re-examination (s 97) | Before grant, only the Commissioner can start it; after grant, any person can request it at any time6 | IP Australia | After grant, the Commissioner must carry out a requested re-examination; before grant it can only be prompted, for example by a third-party notice | Not available to us before acceptance and grant, and we take no part once material is filed |
| Revocation after grant (s 138) | After grant | Court | Broadest grounds; final once appeals are exhausted | Slowest and most expensive; likely to attract an infringement cross-claim |
The practical choice is between a third-party notice now and an opposition later. My preference is the opposition. An examiner is unlikely to find the video unprompted, but the application is probably close to acceptance, and an opposition lets us run the evidence ourselves. The cost of waiting is that we must be ready to file within three months of acceptance.
Whichever route we use, we must also deal with the grace period. Australia disregards the applicant’s own disclosures made in the twelve months before its filing date.7 EvoLift will say the June 2019 presentation by its chief engineer is such a disclosure. Whether that works depends on when EvoLift filed its international application, which I do not yet know. A filing after mid-June 2020 would put the video outside the period, and one before that date would not.
Buy High-Quality Essays & Assignment Writing As
Per Particular University, High School Or College By NZ Writers
300+
PhD Writers
4.9/ 5 ratings
From Students
70 +
Subject Covered
10+
Years Of Experience
Coordinated strategy across both jurisdictions
The two applications share a priority date (1 December 2019, assumed valid), the same core claim and largely the same art, so the work should be run once and used twice. I recommend one prior-art dossier, one expert witness on tilting ducted-fan wings, and one set of attorneys instructed to keep the Australian and New Zealand positions consistent.
Sequencing is the real decision. The New Zealand deadline is fixed and comes first. An opposition there puts our evidence on the public record and alerts EvoLift, which could then amend in Australia to add a battery limitation. A reasonable middle path is to file in New Zealand on the narrower inventive step case and use only the 2016 patent and the 2017 article against the Australian application at first, keeping the video in reserve for any later Australian opposition.
Operationally, you plan test flights in Queensland in mid-2027. If the Australian application proceeds to grant, those flights fall within the claims. Australia has an infringement exemption for prior use, and your September 2019 hangar heads of agreement and prototype order may help, but it depends on its precise conditions (including what counts as steps taken, and whether they were taken in Australia) and I would not treat it as a safe harbour.6 New Zealand also has a prior-use provision, but your New Zealand activity so far is only planned, so it is unlikely to assist.8
Implications for VertiDynamics’ own applications
EvoLift’s earlier priority date (1 December 2019) is before your US provisional (20 March 2020). Its specifications were published later, after your priority date. In both countries that combination can make EvoLift’s specifications part of the prior art against your claims for novelty, even though they were not public on your priority date.8,7 In New Zealand this operates under section 8(2). In Australia it is the “whole of contents” rule, which works through the novelty provisions.
In practice, that means every VertiDynamics claim that covers a tilting ducted-fan wing with thrust redistribution is exposed to a novelty objection, and the NZ battery-in-wing feature is the most likely place where a narrower claim survives. Your applications are unexamined, so there is room to amend before examination.
The second risk is your own October 2019 disclosure. It happened before your priority date, so it is potentially prior art against you. Both countries have a grace period of twelve months for the applicant’s own disclosures, and New Zealand’s applies to disclosures from 30 December 2018 onward.9,7 On the dates in the brief, the meeting is roughly seventeen months before your 19 March 2021 international filing date, so on its face it falls outside the grace period in both jurisdictions. That leaves one argument: the meeting was not a public disclosure because the 12 attendees were under a duty of confidence. The slides were marked “Confidential” but no NDA was signed. Whether an obligation arose is a question of fact, and the law here is not clear enough for me to give you a firm answer.
Further information needed
| Information | Why it matters | How it changes the advice |
|---|---|---|
| EvoLift’s PCT filing date | Fixes whether the June 2019 VertiCon disclosure is inside a twelve-month grace period for EvoLift | If outside, the video is strong art against both applications and we should lead with it; if inside, we rely on the 2016 and 2017 art |
| Who attended the October 2019 meeting and what they were told about confidentiality | Decides whether the meeting was public | If a duty of confidence arose, the risk to our own claims reduces; if not, we must narrow our claims |
| Exact content of the VertiCon video | Shows whether it discloses battery placement or any further features | Controls whether the video is a novelty or an inventive step case in each country |
| Status and timing of the AU application’s response and any acceptance | Starts the Australian clocks | May force an earlier decision on a third-party notice |
I have assumed that EvoLift is entitled to its priority date, that the machine translation of the Chinese utility model is accurate, and that costs are only qualitative. I recommend a short call this week to settle the New Zealand instruction.
Further help
If your own letter needs a structure check or a second pair of eyes, our law assignment help team covers patent and IP scenarios, and the Auckland assignment help page lists support for University of Auckland courses. You can also read the related LAWCOMM 795 letter of advice sample to compare formats.
In quest for a professional assignment help?
Flexible rates compatible with everyone’s budget
About the expert
According to his profile, George Stewart is an academic researcher and article writer who has published research articles in international journals and written proposals, research projects and law content, with topics that include trade law, international law, constitutional law, consumer protection and labour law.
References
- Patents Act 2013 (NZ), ss 92–93; Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand, Opposition to grant of a patent (2013 Act).
- Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 27; IP First Response, Third-party notices and challenging a patent application.
- Patents Act 2013 (NZ), ss 90–91 and 94–97; Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand, Examination process.
- Patents Act 2013 (NZ), ss 112–114; Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand, Revocation of a patent.
- Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 59; IP First Response, Challenge a new or amended patent.
- Patents Act 1990 (Cth), ss 97, 119 and 138, Federal Register of Legislation.
- Patents Act 1990 (Cth), s 24; IP Australia, Grace period and whole of contents novelty issue.
- Patents Act 2013 (NZ), ss 8(2) and 146, New Zealand Legislation.
- Patents Act 2013 (NZ), s 9(1)(f); Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand, Section 9: Disclosure to be disregarded in certain circumstances.
