PracticeVideosBlogFlashcardsEspañol
All Practice Exams

100+ Free AU Patent Attorney Practice Questions

Australian Patent Attorney Registration Examinations (TTIPAB) practice questions are available now; exam metadata is being verified.

✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
100+ Questions
100% Free

Loading questions...

Same family resources

Explore More IP Agent Exams

Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.

Australian Trade Marks Attorney Registration Exams (TTIPAB)

Practice Questions

Canadian Patent Agent Knowledge Examination (CPATA)

Practice Questions

Canadian Trademark Agent Knowledge Examination (CPATA)

Practice Questions

China Patent Agent Qualification Examination (PAQE)

Practice Questions

EPO EQE Pre-Examination

Practice Questions

European Qualifying Examination (EQE)

Practice Questions
2026 Statistics

Key Facts: AU Patent Attorney Exam

Patents Act 1990

Core Governing Statute

Commonwealth of Australia

20 years

Standard Patent Term

Patents Act 1990

31 months

PCT National Phase Deadline

IP Australia

2012

Raising the Bar Reforms

IP Laws Amendment Act 2012

Aug 2021

Innovation Patent Phase-Out

IP Australia

9 topic groups

Prescribed Knowledge Requirements

TTIPAB / IPTA

Registration as an Australian patent attorney is governed by the Trans-Tasman IP Attorneys Board (TTIPAB) and requires satisfying the prescribed knowledge requirements across nine topic groups: legal process, IP overview, professional conduct, trade marks law, trade marks practice, patent law, patent systems, drafting patent specifications, and interpretation and validity (plus designs). Candidates must hold a degree in a field with potentially patentable subject matter (science, technology or engineering), complete TTIPAB-accredited study, meet a relevant employment requirement, and be of good character. The core tested law is the Patents Act 1990 (Cth): manner of manufacture (s18(1)(a), NRDC, D'Arcy v Myriad), novelty and inventive step (s7), utility, the s24 grace period, section 40 enablement and support (Raising the Bar 2012), examination and s59 opposition, the 20-year term, infringement and revocation (ss13, 117, 119, 138), the 31-month PCT national phase, and the Designs Act 2003 (new and distinctive, 10-year maximum term). Innovation patents were phased out from 26 August 2021. Registration covers both Australia and New Zealand and is maintained through continuing professional education.

Sample AU Patent Attorney Practice Questions

Try these sample questions to test your AU Patent Attorney exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.

1Under section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), the threshold requirement that an invention be a 'manner of manufacture' is assessed by reference to which historical instrument?
A.Section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies 1623
B.The Statute of Anne 1710
C.The Paris Convention 1883
D.The Patents Act 1977 (UK)
Explanation: Section 18(1)(a) requires that an invention be 'a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies'. This phrase is the gateway to patentable subject matter in Australia and was authoritatively construed by the High Court in NRDC v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252.
2In NRDC v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252, the High Court held a method of selectively killing weeds was patentable subject matter. What principle did the Court establish for 'manner of manufacture'?
A.A product must be a physical, tangible article to be patentable
B.An artificially created state of affairs of economic significance can be a manner of manufacture
C.Only chemical compounds, not methods, are patentable
D.Agricultural methods are categorically excluded from patentability
Explanation: NRDC rejected a narrow, literal reading and held that a process producing an artificially created state of affairs of economic utility or significance is a manner of manufacture. This flexible, principle-based test allowed the herbicide method to be patented and remains the foundation of Australian subject-matter law.
3In D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35, the High Court of Australia held that an isolated nucleic acid coding for the BRCA1 protein was:
A.A patentable manner of manufacture because isolation involves human intervention
B.Patentable only if the claim was limited to a diagnostic method
C.Not a manner of manufacture because the substance of the claim was genetic information existing in nature
D.Patentable as a microorganism under the Budapest Treaty
Explanation: The High Court unanimously held the isolated nucleic acid was not a manner of manufacture under s18(1)(a). The substance of the invention was genetic information embodied in the sequence, which was not 'made' by human action; the Court emphasised the claim's substance over its form and the policy considerations for a new class of claim.
4Section 18(2) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) expressly excludes a category of subject matter from being a patentable invention. What is it?
A.Computer software
B.Business methods
C.Methods of medical treatment of humans
D.Human beings and the biological processes for their generation
Explanation: Section 18(2) states that human beings, and the biological processes for their generation, are not patentable inventions. This is a specific statutory exclusion, distinct from the general manner-of-manufacture analysis applied to other subject matter such as software or business methods.
5For a standard patent, section 18(1) lists the requirements of patentability in addition to manner of manufacture. Which set correctly states them?
A.Novelty, inventive step, useful, and not secretly used before the priority date
B.Novelty, innovative step, and industrial applicability
C.Novelty and non-obviousness only
D.Novelty, inventive step, and absolute novelty worldwide before filing
Explanation: Under s18(1), a standard patent invention must be a manner of manufacture, be novel and involve an inventive step when compared with the prior art base (s18(1)(b)), be useful (s18(1)(c)), and not have been secretly used in the patent area before the priority date (s18(1)(d)).
6Novelty of a standard patent claim is assessed against the prior art base under section 7(1). An invention is taken to be novel unless it is not novel in the light of:
A.Only documents published in Australia before the priority date
B.Prior art information made publicly available in a single document or by a single act, or in documents/acts that can be combined under s7(1)(b)/(c)
C.Any combination of documents the examiner chooses to mosaic together
D.Information the skilled person could ascertain anywhere in the world
Explanation: Under s7(1), novelty is destroyed by prior art information made publicly available in a single document or through doing a single act, or in two or more related documents/acts that the skilled person would treat as a single source. Unlike inventive step, novelty generally does not permit free 'mosaicing' of unrelated documents.
7A common method for assessing whether a prior publication anticipates a claim asks whether the prior disclosure, if performed, would fall within the claim. This is known as the:
A.Cripps question
B.Windsurfing/Pozzoli structured approach
C.Reverse infringement test
D.Catnic purposive test
Explanation: The reverse infringement test asks whether the alleged anticipation, if the patent were valid, would constitute an infringement of the claim. If carrying out the prior disclosure would infringe, the claim lacks novelty. The disclosure must contain clear and unmistakable directions to do what the patentee claims.
8The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 changed the inventive step test in section 7(2)-(3). What was a key effect on the common general knowledge consideration?
A.Common general knowledge is now limited to knowledge within Australia only
B.Common general knowledge can no longer be considered at all
C.Only common general knowledge published in patents counts
D.The geographical limitation confining common general knowledge to Australia was removed
Explanation: Raising the Bar removed the requirement that common general knowledge be limited to that existing in the patent area (Australia). Under the amended s7(2), obviousness is judged in the light of common general knowledge as it existed, whether in or out of the patent area, before the priority date.
9Before Raising the Bar, s7(3) limited prior art information usable for inventive step to information the skilled person could be 'reasonably expected to have ascertained, understood and regarded as relevant'. What did the 2012 reforms do to this filter?
A.Removed the 'ascertained' restriction so any publicly available information may be considered
B.Strengthened the 'ascertained' requirement
C.Limited the prior art to documents filed at IP Australia
D.Made the filter apply to novelty as well
Explanation: Raising the Bar removed the 'ascertained' restriction from s7(3). After the reform, prior art information for inventive step is information that is publicly available; the skilled person need not have been able to ascertain it. The remaining requirement is that the information be understood and regarded as relevant.
10Section 24 of the Patents Act 1990 provides a grace period that allows certain disclosures to be disregarded from the prior art base. What is the standard length of this grace period before a complete application?
A.6 months
B.12 months
C.18 months
D.No grace period exists in Australia
Explanation: Section 24, together with the Regulations, provides a 12-month grace period: information made publicly available within 12 months before the filing of a complete application (for example by the inventor's own publication) can be disregarded when assessing novelty and inventive step. Applicants should still file as early as possible because foreign jurisdictions may lack equivalent grace periods.

About the AU Patent Attorney Practice Questions

Verified exam format metadata for Australian Patent Attorney Registration Examinations (TTIPAB) is pending. The practice questions above remain available while official exam length, timing, passing score, fee, and administrator details are reviewed.