Australia: Clarification on software/business method patents

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Australia: Clarification on software/business method patents

The Australian Appeal Court has recently clarified the position of software and business method patents in Australia. In Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd, the Full Federal Court again aligned Australia with a US-centric position akin to that set out in the Alice Corporation case.

The court set out the following statements of principle: 1. "A technical innovation is patentable, a business innovation is not", and 2. "Simply putting a business method or scheme into a computer is not patentable unless there is an invention in the way in which the computer carries out the scheme or method".

In a clear statement, the court found that any standard operation of a generic computer with generic software to implement a business method is unlikely to result in the business method being patentable.

The court's pronouncement amounts to the creation of a judicial exception to patentability, in line with the position in the United States and Europe. Determining what amounts to the generic operation of a computer is likely to prove difficult in practice and lead to some uncertainty in Australian decisions. It also means that many extremely innovative business methods may no longer be patentable in Australia. It is also likely that our courts will continue to look to the United States and Europe in deciding the limits of business method patents.

treolar.jpg

Peter Treloar


Shelston IPLevel 21, 60 Margaret StreetSydney NSW 2000, AustraliaTel: +61 2 9777 1111Fax: +61 2 9241 4666email@shelstonip.comwww.shelstonip.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources at four firms explain how changes to USPTO fees provide opportunities to give clients strategic counselling
An intervention by Dyson into the UK’s patent box regime and a report unveiling the major SEP owners were among the big talking points this week
With the threshold for proving copyright infringement by AI tools clearer than ever, 2025 could answer some of the key questions
Partners at Latham & Watkins and Finnegan reveal how they helped explain their client’s technology to a jury
One of Managing IP’s most influential people in IP for 2024, Hurtado Rivas discusses mental health in the profession, the changing role of a trademark lawyer, and what keeps a Nestlé IP counsel busy
Transactions specialist Mathilda Davidson, who has joined from Gowling WLG, says the firm will help clients seeking venture capital investment
Sources in the US, UK, and Australia hope that pressing questions surrounding AI and patent eligibility will finally be answered this year
Two partners who joined Brown Rudnick last year explain how their new firm’s venture capital experience is helping them accomplish their goals
Michael Gaertner explains why Locke Lord’s merger with Troutman Pepper sparked the need to seek a new home and why Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney ticked the right boxes
The appointment makes good on the firm’s promise to boost its UPC expertise
Gift this article