The High Court judgment in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (2022) 96 ALJR 837; [2022] HCA 29 concerned four related innovation patents for an electronic gaming machine, which had been revoked by the Commissioner following their examination. The patentee's appeal to the Federal Court was successful, but then the Commissioner's appeal to the Full Federal Court was unanimously allowed. The patentee obtained leave of the High Court to appeal from this judgment. The contentious issue was whether the patents claim something which falls within the meaning of "manner of manufacture" that appears in the Act. The Full Court held that the claims were directed to a mere scheme, notwithstanding that they were implemented electronically in a gaming machine. Though the High Court was divided 3-3 as to the determination of the appeal, the six judges did not significantly differ on the principles to apply, and endorsed the approach adopted by the Federal Court with one reservation, namely that, contrary to the view of the majority of the Full Court, it was unnecessary to pose the preliminary question: "is the invention claimed a computer-implemented invention?"; the High Court reiterated (as it had previously in D'Arcy v Myriad) that all that needs to be done is to characterise the substance of the claim, and then ask whether it is the type of subject matter capable of being protected by a patent according to the principles applying to that issue which have been set out by the courts over the years. It was here that the justices of the High Court differed; the three who held that the appeal should be dismissed considered that the claims were, in substance, directed merely to a new system or method of gaming, which according to established precedent is unpatentable, whereas the other three justices considered that the claims were not merely directed to the idea of a game implemented electronically and hence were patentable. See [6700] and [PA.18320]-[PA 18.330].

In Re GloFish, LLC [2002] APO 52, an application for an extension of time by a patent applicant to make a deposit of a micro-organism, the Deputy Commissioner of Patents held, in effect, that a failure by a patent applicant to make a deposit of a micro-organism before the filing date of a patent application which refers to the deposited micro-organism, cannot be remedied by the applicant  requesting an extension of time to make the deposit. See [76180] and [PA 223.160].

The Patent Law in Australia online service continues to be an indispensable guide to obtaining, maintaining, enforcing and challenging the validity of patents in Australia. Balancing both the practical nature of IP Australia processes and in-depth analysis of statute and case law, Patent Law in Australia navigates every aspect of the patenting process, with detailed commentary on the law pertaining to each stage and therefore provides relevant and effective advice for patent attorney's, intellectual property lawyers and barristers. The publication launched in 2008 and is published both as an online subscription service and as a book. The third edition of Patent Law in Australia was published in 2018.

The Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Area is a one-stop shop for practitioners containing news, commentary, a journal, cases and precedents. Our premium news service Alert24 provides daily alerts to your inbox – keeping you abreast of legislative, case and news developments. The Intellectual Property & Technology Law Noticeboard is specifically geared for specialists in the area and will deliver news items of interest and significance written and curated by in-house editors. To subscribe to the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Practice Area on Westlaw, contact Thomson Reuters.