Style Selector
Layout Style
Boxed Background Patterns
Boxed Background Images
Federal Court case:  Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778 (5 June 2020)
In another illustration that this is a hot topic in patent law, another Federal Court case has looked at whether the use of computers in a claimed invention can constitute a manner of manufacture.  In this case in respect of four innovation patent applications, the claimed inventions are electronic gaming machines for betting.
It is well established that a mere scheme (eg. a game), even where plugged into a computer, is not patentable subject matter.  When a computer is involved, the question is whether the computer has been used in such a way that “brings about an artificial state of affairs where the computer was integral to the invention”. It’s a fairly high threshold.
This case involved more again – the court decided that the claimed inventions are not mere schemes, on the basis that they also involved the use of physical hardware (computing devices – including a particular type of display, input devices, etc) to bring the invention into fruition, and therefore can be characterised as a manner of manufacture.  Whether or not the inventions are novel or have the required degree of innovative step (for an innovation patent), is another matter.
Key message:  mere ideas or business schemes are not patentable subject matter.  Make some physical hardware integral to the invention, and at least you might pass the first threshold.

Discover more from Stratocumulus Legal

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.