Trusted, Registered Australian Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys
Why Choose IP Guardian
IP Guardian is a team of registered Australian intellectual property attorneys specialising in patents, trade marks and design registrations. We work with businesses, inventors, and product creators to provide clear, practical IP advice that supports real commercial outcomes.
Our focus is on securing intellectual property rights that are legally sound, commercially valuable, and capable of standing up to challenge over time.
Registered Attorneys
All work is handled by registered Australian Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, not junior staff or automated services.
Strong Technical Understanding
Our attorneys bring experience across engineering, science, branding and product development, allowing us to understand both the invention and the market it operates in.
Enforceable Protection
We structure IP rights with enforcement in mind, so they remain effective if challenged or relied on commercially.
Transparent Fixed Fee Pricing
We provide clear pricing upfront, giving you certainty and confidence with no unexpected costs.
Meet Our Registered IP Attorneys
Our registered Australian Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys bring technical and legal expertise together with commercial insight to secure intellectual property that stands up in practice.
Robin Richardson
Robin Richardson is a highly experienced trade mark practitioner with a global perspective, holding qualifications and bar admissions across multiple jurisdictions, including England & Wales, Ireland, and South Africa. He specializes in trade mark prosecution, contentious proceedings, and IP portfolio management, providing commercially driven solutions to businesses of all sizes.
With a track record spanning leading firms in the UK, South Africa and Australia, as well as a senior corporate IP counsel role, Robin advises on brand protection strategies, trade mark applications, trade mark clearance searches, oppositions, co-existence agreements, and IP asset transactions. His expertise extends to Madrid Protocol applications, enabling businesses to secure rights in multiple jurisdictions efficiently and in a cost-effective manner.
Robin is passionate about sharing his knowledge, having led numerous IP workshops for technology incubators and business accelerators across the UK and Africa. Clients value his pragmatic, approachable style and his ability to navigate complex IP challenges while driving business growth. Connect with Robin to safeguard your brand and maximize the value of your intellectual property.
Ali is a senior trans-tasman Patent and Trade Marks attorney, recognised as being the “IP guy” for some of NZ’s most successful and innovative start-ups. His primary focus is in making high-quality IP services more accessible to tech companies and businesses that have global ambitions.
Ali's client base includes high-tech startups and scale-ups, universities, small to medium-sized businesses, and venture capital firms operating across Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. He holds an honours degree in Electrical Engineering and advises on a broad range of intellectual property matters in the tech and engineering fields. His technical expertise includes audio technology, power distribution systems, AI for industrial automation, medical technology, microfluidics, and other general electrical, software, and mechanical devices.
Ali also supports his clients with their global brand protection, and manages in-house IP functions including: invention capture, IP budgeting and cost-forecasting, education, pitch decks, funding applications and aligning strategies with commercialisation plans.
Outside of work, he finds balance by spending time with family and friends, staying active with a game or two of football (“soccer”), and taking time to pursue other personal goals and creative interests.
Matt is a registered trans-Tasman Patent and Trade Marks attorney and is sought after for his experience in intellectual property, business development, and growth. He advises clients on obtaining, asserting, and defending global patent portfolios, particularly in cutting-edge technologies including electronic systems, software and hardware, embedded systems, AI, machine learning, power management, telecommunications, optics and automotive technologies.
With a blend of deep technical knowledge and strategic insight, Matt helps clients navigate complex IP landscapes, ensuring robust protection and commercial success for their innovations. His expertise includes IP registration, strategic IP management, enforcement of IP rights, and litigation strategy.
Matt’s clients are based in New Zealand, Australia, and the USA, and appreciate Matt’s highly regarded technical aptitude and exceptional representation. Drawing on firsthand business experience from founding and exiting a successful technology company, Matt provides commercially-focused, practical IP solutions.
He holds a degree in Optoelectronics and a Masters in Physics from the University of Auckland, and has extensive experience working with a range of advanced technologies.
Outside of work, Matt is an ‘active relaxer’, often found developing electronic systems for motorsport applications.
Simon has been practising in the intellectual property field since 1996. His practice includes patent drafting and prosecution, patent oppositions, novelty and freedom to operate investigations, along with patent infringement and validity assessments. He has extensive experience in both New Zealand and Australia as well as with the World Intellectual property organisation.
Simon has worked with a broad range of technology areas, and specialises in software, electronics and ICT-related inventions. He has particular experience in the fields of pattern-recognition software, Hall-effect transducers, search-engine optimisation systems, biometric-recognition processes, electric-fencing technology and RFID systems.
Simon represents clients in matters before the Australian Intellectual Property Office, the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office and the World Intellectual Property Office. Simon has a Bachelor of Science and Technology, majoring in Physics and Electronics and a Graduate Diploma in Information Technology.
Sandra has eight years’ patent attorney practice experience working for New Zealand, Australian and international clients. Her experience spans patent infringement and validity assessments, patent drafting and prosecution through to novelty and freedom to operate investigations.
She engages with clients within a wide variety of technology areas including general sciences, but specialises in biotechnological and biochemical processes.
As well as protecting general mechanical technologies and consumer products, Sandra has experience working with pharmaceutical compositions, veterinarian preparations and animal husbandry products, active biological compounds, and livestock parentage determination systems.
Sandra represents clients in matters before IP Australia, the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office and the World Intellectual Property Office. Sandra has a Master of Science (first-class honours) in Biochemistry and a Bachelor of Science with a double major in Biology and Chemistry.
Dr Seán Klinkradt is an experienced intellectual property professional with over two decades of expertise in the field. As a registered Patent Attorney in both Australia and New Zealand, he has built a career working with prominent IP firms across South Africa and Australia.
Throughout his professional career, Seán has developed extensive knowledge in diverse scientific domains including biotechnology, chemistry, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and veterinary fields. His academic background encompasses degrees in science, law, and humanities from prestigious institutions such as the University of Port Elizabeth, University of Technology Sydney, and Stellenbosch University.
Seán’s scientific expertise is further enhanced by his PhD in neuroscience from RMIT University in Melbourne. His doctoral research focused on identifying and characterizing a novel excitatory amino acid transporter in rodent brains, which shows promise as a potential therapeutic target for various neurological, neurodegenerative, and neuropsychiatric conditions. Seán is a Fellow of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia. He is also an Attorney of the High Court of South Africa.
Beyond his practice, Seán lectures in biomedicine, business law and human rights, intellectual property, various medical subjects, and property law at multiple universities.
Seán enjoys reading widely, particularly works from the ancient world, and philosophy.
Qualifications: • BSc (Biochemistry and Zoology) • BSc (Hons) (Biochemistry) • BJuris (Law subjects, Latin, English, and Afrikaans) • MSc (Biochemistry: Research degree focused on the enzymology and protein chemistry of the proteasome) • LLB (Law subjects, postgraduate award – equivalent of JD) • Master of Industrial Property (Patent Law, Trade Mark Law, and Design Law) • BPhil (Ancient Cultures of the Near East and Mediterranean) • PhD (Neuroscience) • Registered Trans-Tasman Patent Attorney (Australia and New Zealand) • Attorney of the High Court, South Africa • Fellow of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys • 25 years’ experience in intellectual property law at top tier firms in Australia and South Africa
Mike Biagio is a principal of IP Guardian and has had previous experience in research and development and project engineering before becoming a patent attorney. Mike has been involved in specialist intellectual property law since 2001 in a variety of countries including South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, and has more than 21 years of experience as a patent attorney in obtaining patents and designs around the world for his clients.
Mike has been a lecturer and regular mentor at UNSW, University of Wollongong, and University of Sydney for a number of years, and has advised start-ups at incubators/accelerators on intellectual property and ideation.
Book a no obligation meeting directly with Mike at a time and date that suits you here.
Background
Mike has a background in mechanical engineering although he has also specialised in software patents. Patent applications that Mike has drafted include the following technologies:
packaging;
consumer products;
mining and mining related;
mechanical devices;
robotics and electromechanical mechanisms;
fintech;
industrial processes;
naval/marine;
medical devices;
defence and weapons systems;
and many more.
Qualifications
Mike was also previously involved in IP Valuation, which gave him an eye for understanding the commercial aspects of intellectual property.
Mike has a wife and three teenage children, who love him despite him being “deadly boring and stuck in the eighties”.
Qualifications:
Registered Australian Patent Attorney
Registered New Zealand Patent Attorney
Qualified South African Patent Attorney (not practising)
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (UCT)
Bachelor of Laws (UNISA)
Attorney of the High Court of South Africa (not practising)
Barry Meskin, the founder and principal of IP Guardian, is an experienced attorney and is passionate about helping clients' protect their inventions and brands. He has over 20 years’ experience as a patent and trade mark attorney at specialist IP law firms and as in-house counsel in Australia.
Barry specialises in patent, trade mark and design registration. He advises startups, SMEs and large corporates on how to protect their intellectual property in Australia and overseas. Barry is passionate about protection consumer brands especially those that are designed and manufactured in Australia.
Book a no obligation meeting directly with Barry at a time and date that suits you here.
Qualifications
Registered Australian Patent Attorney
Registered Trade Mark Attorney
Registered New Zealand Patent Attorney
Bachelor of Science in Engineering
Master of Business Administration
Master of Intellectual Property
Graduate Certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice ((not practising)
Member of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorney of Australia
Member of The Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc
As registered Australian IP attorneys, we offer a comprehensive suite of trade mark, patent and design services to support every stage of protecting and commercialising your intellectual property.
Here are a few examples of how our IP attorneys have helped brands, inventors, and entrepreneurs secure and enforce their intellectual property rights.
Patent
Patent Protection for Innovative Technology
We helped an Australian technology company secure robust patent rights, protecting their innovation ahead of commercial launch.
These reviews come directly from our Google profile and reflect the experience of clients who have worked with us on their intellectual property matters.
Darren Kennedy
26 April 2024
Great service from the Barry and his team, managed to get my trademark in a timely manner and communication was great throughout the whole process. Would use again!
Ryan Gale
22 March 2024
Barry is highly knowledgeable, very personable and got our trademark filed quickly. Thanks for a great service.
Midnight Support
21 March 2024
We had discovered an unknown party had made a unauthorised website using our registered trademarks. We contacted IP Guardian for assistance and the service was nothing less than excellent. Barry called for an initial consultation to see what needed to be done to rectify our problem. He was transparent and upfront with solutions, and provided a quote for the total amount to complete the work required. The quoted amount was more than acceptable, especially considering the problem was resolved within less than 24 hours! We will be using Barry's services for any future trademark and IP related assistance. Joe Gerardis - Midnight Locksmiths & Security
Rug Addiction Australia
5 February 2024
So easy to deal with and understanding of my requirements.
Brad Berman
28 November 2023
Dealing with Barry and the team at IP guardian was so easy. I would highly recommend them.
Betania Gamon
15 October 2023
IP Guardian are very professional, Barry was prompt and great at understanding what we needed. Would highly recommend for anyone needing any IP services!
Thomas Turner
10 October 2023
I am very happy with the service of John Paul and Barry from IP Guardian.
They handled all my queries and I've been very well advised.
Adriana Brusi
3 October 2023
IP Guardian are amazing - and Mike was fantastic to deal with. This was not my first time applying for a Patent; but this was by far the most seemless process. I would never look at another organisation to work with. I had exceptionally tight deadlines to work within; and everything was effortless. If you are looking for high level professionalism; exceptional customer service and a legal standard that ensures they get it done, then I cannot recommend enough.
Rebecca Barbe
26 September 2023
We had our trademark application opposed by a larger company so sought assistance from Joanne Li from IP Guardians. She knows her stuff! She was very clear with what she considered our risks were, how the opposition process works, gave us a few options to consider and was so patient and thorough with us. Turns out she was correct in every aspect.
Joanne and her team were punctual, easy to get a hold of and kept us in the loop every step of the way.
The cost was very fair from our perspective. It's scary when you don't know how far a matter will proceed and how much the costs would blow out.
The matter got resolved quicker than we could have hoped for and we are so grateful we chose Joanne to help us. Will recommend to absolutely anyone and everyone who needs IP support. Thank you Joanne.
Alex Bedders
15 September 2023
Barry and his team are the best in the business. Highly recommend them for all your trademark needs.
Need personal advice on protecting your idea, brand or design?
Speak with a registered IP attorney in a free 20 minute discovery call.
Other real businesses trust us. You are in good company.
Latest Insights From Our IP Attorneys
Stay informed with practical guides and articles written by our registered IP attorneys.
AI Tools and Patents: Key Risks and Legal Safeguards for Australian Inventors and SMEs
By
cliqmc
Artificial intelligence tools are now part of the world at work. AI is being used by startups, researchers and SMEs to move faster and do more with fewer resources, replacing hours and hours of mind-numbing repetitive labour. In the patent space, however, this convenience comes with serious legal risks that are not always obvious at the time of use.
For Australian inventors and businesses, understanding how AI interacts with patent law is now essential. Used carefully, AI can support innovation. Used carelessly, it can destroy confidentiality, weaken patent rights, or even make an invention unpatentable altogether.
Recent guidance from The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys in the UK highlights just how high the stakes are when AI tools intersect with patents. Let’s take a deep dive into the risks and safeguards for inventors and SMEs.
To speak to a patent lawyer about the risks of AI, get in touch with IP Guardian. We are on the ground floor of using AI in all industries, and can help you institutionalise safe practices for using artificial intelligence.
AI tools are accelerating innovation, but also confusion
AI tools can be helpful in early-stage research, problem solving and administrative work. Some patent professionals use carefully controlled AI systems to assist with background searches or internal workflows. Patent offices themselves are also exploring AI to improve search efficiency.
The problem arises when generative AI tools are used without safeguards. Many widely available language models are not designed for confidential or legally sensitive work. Information entered into these tools may be stored, reused, or treated as publicly disclosed.
For patent law, confidentiality before filing is critical. Once an invention is disclosed to the public, even unintentionally, patent rights may be lost in Australia and in many overseas jurisdictions.This means if you disclose your invention to AI tools, it could be considered a public disclosure.
Misinformation is on the rise
AI tools are designed to produce convincing language, not guarantee accuracy. This creates a real risk of misinformation in patent work.
Generative AI can produce technical descriptions that sound plausible but are incorrect, incomplete, or based on false assumptions. It may invent features, misstate how an invention works, or misunderstand prior art.
Legal concepts such as inventorship or patent requirements may also be presented inaccurately.
Confidentiality breaches
AI tools can create serious confidentiality risks when used in connection with inventions.
Terms and conditions of AI platforms may change without notice. Some tools reserve the right to utilise user inputs as training data, which can result in permanent exposure of confidential information.
Once confidential invention details are shared, trade secrets may effectively enter the public domain. In a patent context, this can destroy novelty and make the invention unprotectable.
For inventors and SMEs, this risk arises even where disclosure is unintended or misunderstood.
Hidden inaccuracies
AI tools can generate content that appears credible but contains critical errors.
These systems are known to produce hallucinations and plausible sounding technical or legal statements that are not correct. In patent documents, these inaccuracies may go unnoticed for years.
Problems often only surface during patent enforcement, opposition, or litigation, when it is too late to fix them.
Reliance on AI generated content without expert verification can result in weak or invalid patent rights.
Patentability failures
AI tools may generate patent applications that look complete but fail to meet legal requirements.
In particular, AI generated drafts may not properly describe how the invention works or how it can be carried out. This can result in patents that are invalid or impossible to enforce.
A patent that does not adequately disclose the invention provides little or no real protection, regardless of how polished the application appears.
Human inventorship requirements
Patents require named human inventors.
Over reliance on AI tools can make it difficult to identify human contributions to an invention. This creates risk around inventorship, ownership, and future enforcement.
If inventorship is incorrect or unclear, a patent may be vulnerable to challenge or revocation, even years after it is granted.
Clear identification of human inventive input is essential under Australian patent law.
Evolving legal landscaping
The legal framework around AI and intellectual property is still developing.
New regulations or court decisions may apply to patent applications filed today, creating unforeseen complications in the future.
In addition, the terms and conditions of many AI tools expressly prevent their use for legal advice or regulated professional services, which may create compliance issues for businesses relying on AI in patent work.
What is acceptable practice today may not remain so tomorrow.
Data training risks
In many cases, information entered into AI tools may be used to train future models.
This means confidential technical details could contribute to future AI outputs, potentially benefiting competitors.
There is also a risk that models trained on copyrighted material may generate corresponding output, creating additional legal exposure for users.
For inventors and SMEs, this raises serious concerns about loss of competitive advantage and downstream IP liability.
The role of IP Guardian in protecting AI-related inventions
At IP Guardian, we work closely with Australian inventors and SMEs navigating the challenges of AI and intellectual property. We understand how AI tools are being used in real-world innovation and where the legal fault lines lie.
Our approach focuses on:
Identifying and managing AI-related patent risks early
Ensuring confidentiality is preserved before filing
Clearly establishing human inventorship and contribution
Drafting patent specifications that are robust, accurate, and enforceable
We also stay across international developments, recognising that many Australian innovators operate globally and need protection that stands up beyond Australia.
Looking to the future
AI is not going away, and neither are the legal questions it raises. Regulators, courts and patent offices around the world are continuing to refine their approach to AI and intellectual property.
For now, the safest path for Australian inventors and SMEs is a cautious one. Treat AI as a tool, not an inventor. Protect confidentiality rigorously. Seek professional advice before relying on AI-generated content in patent work.
With the right safeguards in place, AI can support innovation rather than undermine it.
If you are using AI tools as part of your invention or product development process and want to understand how to protect your intellectual property, speaking with an experienced patent attorney early can make all the difference. IP Guardian is here to help you do that with clarity and confidence.
Can Artificial Intelligence Be an Inventor? The Ongoing Debate in Australia’s Patent System
By
Barry Meskin
In today’s world of generative AI, machine learning and autonomous systems, one of the hottest legal questions is this: can an AI be listed as an inventor on a patent? The idea sounds futuristic, but it has already played out in courtrooms, legislatures and patent offices. In Australia, that debate has sharpened significantly.
Let’s explore how the law views AI inventorship, the key cases that have shaped the rule and how IP Guardian helps clients navigate this uncharted territory.
Why the question matters
Imagine a powerful algorithm that independently conceives a novel drug, a new battery material, or an optimised mechanical structure without explicit human direction. If patent law allows AI to be inventor, it would radically shake how we reward creativity, assign ownership and drive investment.
Patents are incentives. They reward those who make the inventive leap. If AI starts making those leaps, the whole system must rethink who gets credit, who pays and who enforces rights. That makes this more than academic. It is foundational to technology policy, innovation strategy and business planning.
The foundational: inventors must be people
Under Australian law, the concept of an inventor is rooted in the idea of a person who devises or contributes to a new invention. The Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and relevant regulations have long assumed that inventors are natural persons.
IP Australia’s manuals make this clear: “an inventor must be a natural person and cannot be a legal recognised entity such as a corporation, or Artificial intelligence.”.
That assumption was tested in the famous Thaler / DABUS saga. Dr Stephen Thaler applied for patents naming an AI system called DABUS as the inventor, claiming the AI had autonomously generated the invention. The Deputy Commissioner initially rejected the application for failing to name a human inventor.
Some stunned observers looked on with interest when, in 2021, Justice Beach, a Federal Court judge, found that the term “inventor” might be interpreted more flexibly, potentially allowing a machine to be inventor under certain readings of the statute. But that was not the end.
In 2022, the Full Federal Court unanimously reversed that view in Commissioner of Patents v Thaler, reaffirming that an inventor must be a human (or group of humans). The court emphasised that in Australia’s statutory structure, invention attribution must be to persons.
Dr Thaler sought appeal to the High Court, but his application for special leave was refused in November 2022. That refusal effectively locked in that AI cannot be an inventor under current Australian law.
Thus, the prevailing rule in Australia today is: you cannot list an AI as the inventor.
(Image: Thaler / DABUS case ruled inventor must be human)
Global contrasts spur ongoing debate
Australia is not alone in wrestling with this question. Many jurisdictions maintain the stance that only humans can be inventors, including the U.S., the European Patent Office and the UK.
Some intrigue surrounds jurisdictions like South Africa where patent offices granted rights listing AI as inventor (with human beneficiaries). Yet even in those cases, thorny issues of ownership, liability and accountability loom large.
In Australia, one interesting nuance is that while the inventor must be human, inventions that result from AI use or AI assistance can still be patentable, provided a human played a decisive role in conception or implementation. The courts and IP Australia require clarity about human “inventive concept” contributions.
The rise of generative AI, large language models and self-optimising systems stirs policy discussions about how IP law might adapt. Some observers look to the Artificial Inventor Project, a campaign pushing test cases in multiple countries to force law reform to recognise nonhuman inventors.
Challenges and the tensions of policy
Several deep challenges lie at the heart of the debate:
Attribution and accountability: A patent grants rights and obligations. If a machine is inventor, who owns those rights? Who is liable if the application is wrong or infringing?
Incentives and reward: The patent system rewards those who take the risk to invent. If AI dominates invention, do incentives shift entirely toward machine builders?
Disclosure and credibility: Patent law requires enablement and full disclosure. If AI generates black-box innovations, can the human applicant sufficiently explain and support the invention?
Legal reform vs judicial interpretation: The Full Court ruling suggests that any change to allow AI inventors likely must come from Parliament, not courts.
These tensions mean that, despite excitement, reform will not be simple or immediate.
(Image: AI assistance and patent accountability)
Where IP Guardian Comes In
At IP Guardian, we believe the AI inventorship debate is not just an academic point. It has real consequences for innovators building in biotech, clean energy, software, and more. Here’s how we help clients:
Strategic drafting: We structure applications to emphasise human inventive contributions while acknowledging algorithmic assistance.
Openness to novel claims: We monitor emerging AI and patent trends globally so clients are positioned to pivot quickly if law reform occurs.
Global filing support: If clients want to file in jurisdictions more open to AI or experimental claims, we help bridge Australian protection with international strategies.
Policy insight: We advise clients on government consultation processes, AI ethics frameworks, and how to frame their R&D pipeline for future legal shifts.
Because the debate continues to evolve, having a partner who understands both IP law and emerging technology is vital. IP Guardian is here for you.
What happens next
While the current law in Australia bars AI from being inventor, change is not inconceivable. As AI systems become more autonomous, pressure will build for law reform, statutory updates, or regulatory adaptation. We expect to see:
Increased lobbying and consultation around adapting the Patents Act or regulations.
Test cases in niche fields (e.g. generative biology, autonomous design) pushing boundaries.
International divergence, with some jurisdictions leading reform and others resisting.
More complex claims involving AI assistance where human inventiveness may be subtle or hybrid.
For Australian innovators, the message is clear: protect what you can now, but keep an eye on how this frontier evolves.
The question “Can artificial intelligence be an inventor?” touches the heart of how we reward innovation. In Australia, the law currently says inventors must be human. The DABUS case reinforced that position, and the Full Court’s ruling has held firm. Yet the pace of AI development makes this a live topic, not a closed one.
At IP Guardian, we help inventors and organisations navigate these uncertainties. Whether your innovation includes AI, machine learning, or autonomous systems, we make sure your patent strategy is robust, forward-looking, and ready to adapt.
Curious how AI, patents, and your industry intersect? Reach out to our IP Guardian team for a consultation. We’re happy to explore possibilities with you.
Global Design Reform: How the New Design Law Treaty Could Simplify Protection for Australian Designers
By
Mike Biagio
Designs are the silent ambassadors of innovation. Whether it is a piece of furniture, a handbag, or a smart home device, the visual appeal of a product can define its success. Yet for Australian designers, protecting that visual identity across borders has long been a frustrating process filled with inconsistent rules and high costs.
The landscape is about to change. The Riyadh Design Law Treaty (RDLT), finalised in 2024 under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), aims to make international design registration simpler, cheaper and more predictable. This new global framework could mark the most significant shift in design law in decades, and Australian creatives should be paying attention.
What is the Riyadh Design Law Treaty?
The Riyadh Design Law Treaty was adopted by WIPO member states in November 2024. Its goal is to harmonise procedural requirements for registering industrial designs, making it easier for designers to obtain protection in multiple countries through a consistent set of rules.
The treaty focuses on formalities, not on the underlying rules about what makes a design new or distinctive. In practice, it sets out a standardised list of what information and materials a designer must provide when filing an application. This clarity removes a major source of confusion for those seeking protection abroad.
Other key features include:
A 12-month grace period after public disclosure, allowing designers to exhibit or publish their work before filing without losing eligibility.
The ability to include multiple designs in one application, reducing the paperwork and costs of filing individual applications.
The option to submit different types of representations, including drawings, photographs or digital models.
Relief provisions for missed deadlines or technical errors, protecting applicants from losing rights over minor procedural mistakes.
The possibility of deferring publication, giving designers time to decide when to make their designs public.
The treaty will come into force once at least fifteen countries ratify it, and the expectation is that this will happen within the next few years. Australia has not yet indicated that it will ratify the treaty and IP Australia has said that the next step for Australia is consideration by the Australian Government on whether joining is in Australia’s national interest.
Streamlined international formalities
Under the current system, Australian designers face a maze of rules when trying to register their work overseas. Each country has different application requirements, forms and deadlines. Missing one detail can delay or derail an entire filing.
The Riyadh Treaty introduces a single set of standardised formalities that all participating countries must follow. This means Australian designers will be able to file abroad with far greater confidence that their application will meet each country’s requirements.
Equally important is the treaty’s alignment with the digital age. It encourages national offices to accept electronic submissions and digital design files, making it easier for designers to file online from anywhere. For creative professionals used to working with 3D renderings, video prototypes, or virtual reality visualisations, this update is long overdue.
(Image: Digital design submission)
A boost for Australia’s creative industries
The sectors likely to benefit most from this reform are the ones where visual design is central to commercial value. Furniture makers, fashion houses, consumer electronics brands and industrial designers all rely heavily on aesthetics to set their products apart.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) stand to gain the most. For years, the cost and complexity of international filings have been barriers to entry for smaller firms. With the Riyadh Treaty streamlining formalities, it should become easier and more affordable for Australian creators to protect their products overseas.
The design economy in Australia is already significant. According to IP Australia’s latest figures, more than 7,000 design applications are filed each year, and creative industries contribute more than $111 billion to the national economy. A more accessible global system could amplify that impact by helping Australian designs reach wider markets with proper legal safeguards.
Further domestic implications
Although Australia has not yet ratified the Riyadh Treaty, it is expected that the government will consider doing so in the coming years. If adopted, local legislation and procedures will need to be updated to align with the treaty’s framework.
Changes may include:
Adjustments to the Designs Act 2003 to reflect the new international standards.
Modernisation of IP Australia’s filing systems to handle digital submissions and multiple designs in a single application.
Updates to examination and publication rules, particularly around the new grace period and deferral options.
Potential consultation with Indigenous communities to ensure that protections for traditional designs and cultural expressions are respected.
Australia has historically been proactive in adopting international IP reforms. Ratifying the Riyadh Treaty would be a logical next step to support Australian designers in global markets.
(Image: Protecting Australian designers)
Challenges still remain
While the treaty promises simplification, it will not solve every problem. The RDLT standardises procedures, but it does not change substantive design law. Each country will still determine what qualifies as a design and what level of originality is required.
Some countries may also choose to opt out of certain treaty provisions, creating variations in implementation. Designers will still need expert advice to navigate overlapping jurisdictions and understand which rights apply where.
There is also the question of timing. Even after ratification, it may take several years for countries to update their domestic laws and digital systems. During that period, businesses will need to manage both old and new filing processes.
How IP Guardian can help
At IP Guardian, we work with Australian designers, brands and manufacturers to protect their visual assets both locally and internationally. Our attorneys understand the nuances of design registration and how upcoming reforms like the Riyadh Treaty will reshape the landscape.
Our expertise covers:
Strategic design filing: We identify where and when to register designs for maximum commercial value and cost-efficiency.
International protection: We coordinate international design filings and emerging frameworks like the RDLT to ensure global coverage.
Portfolio management: We help clients maintain, renew and expand their design rights as their product lines grow.
Dispute resolution: We represent clients in opposition, enforcement and infringement matters, protecting their rights when copied or misused.
Education and planning: We provide briefings and training for businesses preparing for Australia’s likely adoption of the new treaty.
By staying ahead of international changes, IP Guardian positions its clients to benefit from new opportunities as soon as they arise.
Getting ready for what’s next
The Riyadh Design Law Treaty represents an important step toward a more coherent global design system. For Australia, it could reduce red tape, lower costs and strengthen the competitiveness of local design industries.
In the short term, designers should focus on understanding their current protections and building robust filing strategies that can transition smoothly into the new regime. Over time, as Australia and other nations implement the treaty, cross-border design protection should become more efficient, transparent and accessible than ever before.
The ability to protect visual innovation globally is vital for a country like Australia, where creativity and design excellence are key export strengths. The Riyadh Design Law Treaty promises to make that process easier and fairer.
As the world moves toward harmonised design systems, working with experienced advisors will be essential. IP Guardian is ready to help Australian designers understand what the treaty means for them and how to take full advantage of these global reforms.
To learn more or to discuss your design strategy, let’s chat.
What is the difference between a patent, trade mark and design?
Patents protect how an invention works, including new products, processes, or technologies. Trade marks protect brand identifiers such as names, logos, slogans, and sometimes sounds or colours. Design rights protect the visual appearance of a product, including its shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation. Each form of protection serves a different purpose, and the right choice depends on what you are creating and how it will be used commercially. In some cases you may be able to apply for a patent, a trade mark and a design.
Do I need to register my IP to be protected?
In most cases, yes. While limited rights may exist without registration, such as common law trade mark rights, these are harder to enforce and offer less certainty. Registering your intellectual property provides clearer ownership, stronger legal protection, and makes it easier to take action if someone infringes your rights.
How much does IP protection cost?
The cost of protecting intellectual property depends on the type of IP, the complexity of the matter, and whether protection is required in Australia only or overseas. At IP Guardian, we offer transparent, fixed fee pricing wherever possible so you understand the costs upfront and can make informed decisions.
Can you help with international IP protection?
Yes. We regularly assist clients with protecting patents, trade marks, and designs outside Australia. This includes advising on international filing strategies, coordinating overseas applications, and working with trusted international associates to ensure consistent and effective protection.
How long does IP protection last?
Trade marks are registered for 10 years initially and can last indefinitely, provided they are renewed and continue to be used. Patents generally last up to 20 years from filing, subject to renewal fees. Design registrations can last up to 10 years in Australia. We can advise on renewal strategies to help maintain protection for as long as it remains commercially valuable.
Speak With an IP Attorney
Have questions about patents, trade marks or design protection? Book a free, confidential discovery call with one of our registered IP attorneys. We will help you understand your options and the best way to protect your idea or brand.
I found them online and initially I was bit hesitant to talk to them about my problem but when I spoke to Barry, I felt more comfortable, and he gave me all the information and advice I wanted without even thinking that I am going to give him business or not. Finally, I went with them, and they made the entire process so smooth and easy for me.
john was keeping us updated with each step he was doing.
I would recommend these guys for any patent or trademark related service.
I would like to express my thanks to Barry and his team at IP Guardian in Sydney for their assistance with our recent Trademark application. Barry was highly professional, readily available throughout the process and clearly communicated expectations. Barry even helped us refine our application so that we had a greater chance of success which was very much appreciated to avoid extra costs. I would highly recommend Ip Guardian for all your Trademark and Intellectual Property needs.
Barry, last week, you and your professional team, made my year (or probably my next 21 years).
So thank you so much for your executive, calm yet very effective actions under extream pressure.
Elias Hajjar,
Director, TROLLEYON PTY LTD
Informative, understood the business, what it needed and answered questions in a friendly and approachable manner. Easy decision to continue working with IPGuardian for future trademarking
From the day I contacted Barry Meskin until now with my silly amateur questions, he has been nothing short of amazing. I actually NEVER leave reviews anywhere, but I felt the need to do so for Barry and his team. I myself am a tradie, so I felt intimidated speaking to an attorney. But the second I spoke to him on the phone, he made me feel right at home. Never pressured me into any decisions, yet when I decided to go ahead with him, he delivered what I needed much quicker than what I was expecting.
I cannot speak highly enough of him and recommend his services 100%.
The team at IP Guardian have made the process extremely straight forward and easy for us to understand exactly what was required. I will highly recommend to our clients who need help with IP.
We've had the pleasure to work closely with Barry for many years. He has been exceptional to deal with and has a keen focus in providing a commercial led IP "go to market" strategy for start-ups and well known brands. Makes it easy and always advises on different ways to navigate through the IP process.
Barry Meskin @ IP Guardian is an experienced and extremely knowledgeable expert in the domain of intellectual property, patents and trademarks. In addition he has been extremely responsive and very professional in all our dealings. I wholeheartedly recommend Barry's services to any business or anyone seeking advice in this area - great quality and great value.
