Australia: Patent Office guidelines for computer implemented inventions
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Australia: Patent Office guidelines for computer implemented inventions

Following on from recent Patent Office success in courts in rejecting business method patents, the Patent Office has released new guidelines on the patentability of computer implemented inventions.

While the court authorities are on appeal, the Office has proceeded to issue the guidelines to align practices with its preferred position, which was adopted by a recent Full Federal Court decision. The new guidelines appear to centralise power with the Office in adopting an approach that the Office will "go beyond the form of words used". The Office will be allowed to allege the "substance of the alleged invention" is a scheme even where the claims define a physical product.

The list of factors the Office will take into account are many and varied, and appear to leave a wide discretion to the Office, in the rejection or acceptance of patent applications. Factors include whether the "contribution" is technical in nature and whether the method "merely requires a generic computer implementation". The guidelines appear to be driven by the Office's desire not to consider business method innovations as worthy of protection. No consideration of the need to protect this area of innovation appears to have been given. There also appears little chance of legislative change in the foreseeable future.

Overall, there is a necessity for applicants to carefully consider the drafting of their patent applications in order to minimise the opportunities for the Office to reject an applicant's innovative endeavours as being too "business method" in nature. Through careful drafting, applicants may be able to negate the Office's wide discretion.


Peter Treloar

Shelston IPLevel 21, 60 Margaret StreetSydney NSW 2000, AustraliaTel: +61 2 9777 1111Fax: +61 2 9241

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Managing IP’s senior reporter Rani Mehta interviewed attendees at the INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta about how they made the most out of their first day
A team of lawyers who joined Norton Rose Fulbright from Polsinelli say they were drawn to the firm's global platform
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Lawyers say a ruling concerning liability for trademark infringement could give company directors an easy way out and create litigation uncertainty
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 5th annual awards
Some US lawyers have strengthened their connections with European firms as they help clients determine whether the UPC will become a 'centre of gravity'
In the latest episode, the team discusses the battle to take control of listed company and IP business Qantm IP, and looks at some recent hiring trends
To mark Mental Health Awareness Week, lawyers explain how they manage their mental health, and how they pluck up the courage to ask themselves difficult questions
IP lawyers unpick a case heard at the CJEU’s Grand Chamber this week that could potentially create a new world for litigation in Europe
A lawyer who replied to a cease-and-desist letter with just two words has shown others how to deal with vexatious infringement allegations
Gift this article