In fantastic news for Australian patent applicants and patentees (and indeed patent attorneys), the Full Federal Court of Australia in its decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 concluded that the earlier Full Court decision in Aristocrat v Commissioner was “erroneous and that there is a compelling reason for us, as a subsequent Full Court, to depart from it”.

The Full Court then assessed the claims of the innovation patents under consideration and found that the claims, directed to an electronic gaming machine, are patent eligible subject matter.  Consequently, the Full Court directed the Commissioner of Patents to issue, publish and register a certificate of examination in respect of each of the Claims.

This decision clarifies that claims are to be characterised based on all features present in the claims, rather than assessing the inventive contribution of the claims.  Further, the Full Court asserted that approach of saying that the implementation of an idea in a computer, using conventional computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions, cannot constitute a patent eligible subject matter is too rigid and narrow.

Importantly, the Full Court noted that the characterisation of the invention stated in allowing reasons from the High Court High Court decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 at [149] to be preferred, noting that such characterisation “as better reflecting the integers of the claim viewed as a whole, encompassing the combination of both the inventive and the non-inventive elements”, and stated that “The characterisation adopted in the allowing reasons does not give undue or preponderant weight to the inventive aspects of the claim over the non-inventive aspects, and gives due recognition to those physical elements which are non-inventive yet fundamental to the operation of the EGM”.

This is consistent with the High Court’s earlier teachings in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35, in which the High Court stated that “inventive merit” is not to be considered when assessing patent eligible subject matter.

The Full Court also stated “In our respectful view, it is too rigid and narrow an approach to say that the implementation of an idea in a computer, using conventional computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions, cannot constitute a “manner of manufacture”. We respectfully agree with the view expressed in the allowing reasons (at [122]) that a better way of expressing the point in such cases is to ask whether, properly characterised, the subject matter that is alleged to be patentable is: (i) an abstract idea which is manipulated on a computer; or (ii) an abstract idea which is implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result.“

Thus, the Full Court has clarified that all integers of a claim are to be considered when characterising the nature of an invention and have provided greater guidance for the assessment of computer-implemented inventions.

It is possible for the Commissioner of Patents to appeal the decision, but for the time being the examination practices of the Australian Patent Office should be immediately updated to reflect the findings of the Full Court.