In a keenly-awaited – and thus hugely disappointing – ‘decision’, the High Court of Australia has failed to satisfactorily resolve the question of whether patent claims directed to electronic gaming machine (EGM) technology developed by Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd are directed to patent-eligible subject matter: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents  HCA 29. With Justice Gleeson calling in sick on the crucial days, arguments in Aristocrat’s appeal from the adverse decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia were heard by just six judges of the High Court, which astute readers will notice is an even number. The diminished bench split 3:3, with Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Keane JJ finding Aristocrat’s claims unpatentable, while Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ would have allowed the appeal, concluding that the claimed invention was patent-eligible. In this situation, section 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 provides that ‘the decision appealed from shall be affirmed’. It does not, however, provide that the reasons of the court appealed from are affirmed. On the contrary, one thing on which all six High Court judges appear to be in agreement is that the two-step approach taken by the Full Federal Court majority was not correct. We were hoping for some clarity on the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions. Instead, we have been delivered two opposing, but equally authoritative, outcomes in the High Court, along with a Full Federal Court decision that stands affirmed, but which has been disapproved. Read more
Monday, September 26 2022 \ Published by Patentology.