- within Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Corporate/Commercial Law and Consumer Protection topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Technology and Law Firm industries
IP Australia has now published its response to stakeholder feedback and updated the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure following the High Court’s rejection of leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131.
The update will be relevant to applicants in the software, fintech, platform, gaming, AI, communications and digital-services sectors. At the outset, the update does not make computer-implemented inventions broadly more patentable in Australia. However, it does give applicants a clearer basis to challenge overly narrow characterisations of claims during examination.
What has changed?
Following consultation, IP Australia has removed some of the language criticised in stakeholder submissions from its earlier Manual update. This includes references to a “relevant artificial effect” and the suggestion that “something more” is required beyond ordinary computer implementation. IP Australia has also clarified that earlier case law should not be read as imposing a strict requirement for an “advance in computer technology”.
The updated Manual now places greater emphasis on characterising the invention as a matter of substance, rather than simply identifying selected features said to represent the “substance” of the invention. That characterisation must have regard to the claim as a whole, all of the claim integers, and how those integers interoperate.
The Manual also clarifies that this is not a novelty or inventive step exercise. Known technical features should not be disregarded merely because they are known, particularly if they are fundamental to the way the claimed invention operates.
These are useful clarifications. We believe the clarifications should make it harder for an examiner to reduce a claim to only its commercial or informational objective while ignoring technical features that are important to the operation of the invention.
What has not changed?
The update does not mean that all software or business-related inventions are now patentable in Australia.
IP Australia has maintained its position that computer-implemented inventions require particular scrutiny. A business method, financial scheme, administrative process, marketing method, logistics optimisation, or presentation of information will not become patentable merely because it is implemented using standard computer technology.
The updated Manual confirms that the key question is whether the invention, properly characterised, is merely an abstract idea manipulated on a computer, or whether it involves implementation on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result.
Practical implications for applicants
For applicants, the practical message is that claim drafting and implementation detail remain critical. Claims that merely recite receiving, processing, storing, transmitting or displaying information using generic computer components will remain vulnerable. Better prospects are likely where the specification describes how the computerised system operates differently in practice, how technical components interoperate, or how the invention produces a specific technical effect or changes the operation of a machine, device, communications system or computerised product.
The updated Manual also recognises that some claims may be supported by their physical elements alone, particularly where the claim is directed to a new physical product or system rather than software running on conventional computer equipment. That pathway may not be available in many software or platform cases, but it may be important for inventions involving devices, control systems, communications systems, gaming machines, sensors or other technical equipment.
In practice, stronger cases are likely to involve one or more of the following:
- an altered or improved computerised product or system
- improved operation of computer or communications technology
- technical interoperation between physical and software components
- a specific external technical effect, or
- a technical solution to a technical problem.
By contrast, claimed inventions where the contribution lies in business logic, financial calculations, administrative workflows, marketing selection, logistics rules, or information presentation remain at risk unless the specification is drafted to show more than a computer implementation of an abstract idea.
What should applicants do now?
Applicants with existing Australian patent applications for software or computer-implemented inventions should review both pending applications and future filing strategies in light of the updated guidance.
In particular, applicants should consider whether the specification:
- defines the invention as an integrated technical system, rather than as a business or information outcome
- explains how the relevant components interoperate
- identifies the technical role of each computer-implemented integer
- avoids relying solely on generic server, processor, database, or display language, and
- describes the technical implementation in sufficient detail.
For the pending Australian patent applications facing manner- of manufacture objections, the updated Manual may provide useful guidance for responding to examiner characterisations that overlook the effect of the invention. In some cases, it may also justify revisiting claim strategy before further examination, particularly where the technical implementation can be brought more clearly into the claim.
The overall message is positive but measured. The update gives applicants better guidance for arguing for the patentability of computer-implemented inventions in Australia, but successful outcomes will still depend heavily on how the invention is claimed, described, and characterised during examination.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
