Today, the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal in Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v Infotrack Pty Ltd. The appeal has been closely followed by those in the ICT space due to its consideration of the approach to the Manner of Manufacture (patentable subject matter) test in the context of computer implemented inventions. Unusually, this case …
>> Read more
In the recent case of Watson v Commissioner of Patents[1] the Federal Court upheld a decision of the Commissioner that a method of innovation is not a patentable invention under the Patents Act s 18(1A) (i.e. not a manner of manufacture within meaning of Statute of Monopolies 1623 (UK) s 6). The patent in question …
>> Read more
While those in the ICT space wait with baited breath on the outcome of Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd, NSD734/2018 (the Encompass appeal, reported here) for guidance on the subject matter eligibility of computer-implemented inventions, a recent decision has perhaps softened the position of the Australian Patent Office. In Apple, Inc. [2019] …
>> Read more
Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, recently indicated before a business audience in the UK that the Australian government was considering implementing a patent box tax scheme much like tax schemes adopted by other jurisdictions, most notably, the UK, France, Ireland, Switzerland, the BeNeLux countries and China. While implementation of a patent box tax scheme in Australia is …
>> Read more
Following a successful three-year trial, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) have agreed to extend the bilateral Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program between them for a further three years. This bilateral PPH pilot program enables applicants with either an accepted (or granted) patent application in Europe or Australia, …
>> Read more
At the core of the right to ownership of a registered design is the fundamental principle of entitlement derived from creation of the design. Ultimately, entitlement flows from the person who created the design, but may reside for example with their employer. An issue that often arises is who the actual designer is, particularly where …
>> Read more
As a patent attorney, I am often asked the question – ‘shall I draft my own patent specification?’ Of course, my answer is ‘no’. There are lots of reasons for this. One of which is that the particular way in which a patent specification is drafted, including the specific words used in the claims to …
>> Read more
A recent decision of the Australian Patent Office[1] exemplified a set of circumstances which failed to satisfy the extension of time provisions under section 223 of the Australian Patents Act. This Decision highlights the importance of formulating evidence so as to demonstrate the occurrence of the error or omission at the relevant time, lest the circumstances …
>> Read more
In late December 2018, ICT patent applicants and their attorneys received a “Christmas bonus” in the form of the Federal Court judgment in Rokt Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2018] FCA 1988 (Rokt). The Court held that a digital advertising system and method (previously rejected by the Commissioner of Patents) was indeed patentable subject …
>> Read more
Almost three years ago, the Full Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in a very notable case¹. At the time, it was hoped that this judgment might provide patent applicants with certainty around the application of the law of Manner of Manufacture (i.e. patentable subject matter) as it relates to computer implemented inventions in …
>> Read more
