Australia weighs in on software patents
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 weighs in on software patents

Australia’s Full Federal Court rules that the computer implementation of an otherwise unpatentable business scheme does not make the claimed invention patentable

The Court’s decision in Research Affiliates v Commissioner of Patents, released today, stems from IP Australia’s rejection of patent applications 2005213293 (the parent application) and 2010236045 (the divisional application). Research Affiliates appealed those decisions to the Federal Court, which upheld the patent office’s ruling, and today’s decision arose from the appeal from that holding.

The claimed invention, for a method of managing investment portfolios and creating securities indexes, is described in the decision as:

[The claimed invention] provides a method of constructing data indicative of a non-capitalisation weighted portfolio of assets, the method being implemented in a computer system and comprising a series of steps commencing with the receipt in the computer system of data gathered in regard to a plurality of assets. Other aspects of the invention provide a system for constructing a non-capitalisation weighted portfolio of assets and a computer-implemented non-capitalisation weighted portfolio of assets construction system. In each case, a computer is used to receive the data and to provide “weighting means” for weighting each of the plurality of assets.

In rejecting Research Affiliates’ appeal, the Full Federal Court ruled that the claimed method is an abstract idea and that any inventive step that may be claimed is found in the creation of the index as information or as a business scheme and not in the computer implementation. The court also found that the claimed invention does not involve what would constitute an improvement in computer technology.

Interestingly, the court also examined cases from other jurisdictions, including the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice v CLS and Aerotel v Telco in the UK, and concluded that the claimed invention would not be patentable in those jurisdictions either.

AJL Bannon SC, Mr PW Flynn and Shelston IP Lawyers acted for Research Affiliates, while DK Catterns QC, C Dimitriadis, AR Hughes and the Australian Government Solicitor represented IP Australia.

Check back later this week for more analysis on this case.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The full list of finalists has been revealed and the winners will be presented on June 20 at the Metropolitan Club in New York
A team of IP and media law specialists has joined from SK Schwarz alongside a former counsel at Sky
The Irish government has delayed a planned referendum on whether Ireland should join the Unified Patent Court, prompting concern about when a vote may take place
With more than 250 winners recognised during the ceremony, there are many reasons to be positive about the health of the IP industry in EMEA
Practitioners say the USPTO’s latest guidance has some helpful clarifications and is a good reminder of the importance of checking AI outputs
Susanne Schmidt discusses why trademarks are more than 'just a name' and why she would choose green farming as an alternative career
The former head of life sciences at Kramer Levin has joined Orrick, a firm that hopes to grow in the sector
Lionel Martin of August Debouzy and Kristof Neefs at Inteo share how they prevailed in a UPC Court of Appeal case surrounding access to documents
Counsel say ‘strange’ results have increased their reliance on subscription-based search platforms, but costs are not being shifted onto clients yet
The firm was among multiple winners at a record-breaking 2024 ceremony held in London on April 11
Gift this article