Encouraging Developments For Computer Implemented Inventions In Australia

by FPA Patent Attorneys

On 30 August 2013, the Federal Court of Australia delivered a judgment on the patentability of computer implemented inventions: RPL Central Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents1.

In summary, Justice Middleton found claims directed to a computer implemented method were patentable subject matter and, more generally, that:

  • a claimed invention must exhibit a “physical effect”;
  • physical effects include computer implemented operations such as retrieving, processing, and/or presenting information;
  • there is no requirement for a physical effect to be “substantial” or “central”;
  • operations (e.g. processing information) which confer a physical effect need not themselves be new; and
  • it is not permissible to strip away claimed features in search of an underlying invention. 

Although Justice Middleton’s finding bodes well for the patentability of computer implemented inventions in Australia, the decision does not appear to sit particularly easily with Justice Emmett’s decision on patentable subject matter in Research Affiliates v Commissioner of Patents(also a single judge decision). 

This being the case it will be interesting to see how the Full Federal Court decides the appeal to the Research Affiliates decision (set to be heard later this year), and how the Australian Patent Office handles computer implemented inventions in the interim. 

The Patent 

RPL Central Pty Ltd is the owner of Australian patent 2009100601. Claim 1 of the patent is directed to:

A method of gathering evidence relevant to an assessment of an individual’s competency relative to a recognised qualification standard. 

The claimed method includes various computer implemented steps such as: 

  • a computer retrieving information via the internet from a remote server,
  • the computer processing the information to automatically generate a corresponding set of questions;
  • an assessment server presenting the questions to a computer of an individual;
  • receiving responses from the individual; and
  • transferring one or more files from the individual’s computer to the assessment server. 

The Australian Patent Office raised and maintained subject matter objections to the application on several bases, all of which were dismissed. 

Patent eligible subject matter

Referring the Australian decisions of NRDC and Grant3, Justice Middleton confirmed that under Australian law the relevant question with respect to subject matter eligibility is whether there is a product in the sense of an artificially created state of affairs, and whether that product has utility in practical affairs.

The question of utility in practical affairs was dealt with in short order, with the judge’s finding that the invention produced a useful result in a field of economic endeavour (the educational sector of the economy).4 The Commissioner of Patents’ argument that the claimed method was “merely intellectual information” was not accepted.  

With respect to the requirement for a “product”, the judge reiterated the need for a physical phenomenon in which a new and useful effect may be observed. For the purpose of applying this requirement to computer programs, he adopted the position put forward in the Grant decision:

There is clearly a physical effect in this case, as there is a component that has been physically effected, or a “change in state or information in a part of a machine”.5

This was despite argument from the Commissioner of Patents that such a test was not part of the ratio of the Full Court’s decision in Grant, and not binding.  

Under this test, the judge found that “each of the computer-effected steps of the invention constitutes or gives rise to a change in state or information in a part of a machine, and therefore produces a physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation.”By way of example, Middleton J singled out that:

  • “the retrieval from a remotely-located server by the computer via the internet … results in the creation of a physical effect by the writing of data in that computer.”7; and
  • “a further artificially created state of affairs is created when the individual user  inputs their responses, and these are sent to the [registered training organisation].8

No requirement that the physical effect be “significant” or “central”

One argument raised by the Commissioner of Patents was that in order to be patentable subject matter any physical effect must be “significant" and “central” to the purpose or operation of the claimed process. 

Specifically, the Commissioner submitted that despite facilitating the claimed method, the claimed computer was not central to the operation of the invention but merely a common or convenient way to carry out the claimed method.9

The judge rejected this proposition, noting that no Australian authorities import any requirement of substantiality or centrality of physical effect. 

The judge went on to state that even if there was a requirement of substantiality, the claims in question explicitly recited a computer and as such it should be considered substantial, central, or integral to each claim in any event.

In this regard the judge also commented that the Commissioner’s advocated approach of stripping away computer aspects of the claimed invention (to end up with an alleged “method for performing an aspect of business”) was not appropriate: 

One should not subtract from the invention any aspect of computer implementation, and then determine whether what remains is proper subject matter of letters patent.10

Subject matter considerations should be subject matter considerations

In his decision, the judge also reiterated the fact that subject matter eligibility is only one of a number of validity criteria.

For example, the Commissioner raised a flood-gate type argument that if there was no ‘substantiality’ requirement of a computer to the claimed process, then any method operated on a computer would fulfil the artificial state of affairs requirement. The judge dismissed this notion, observing that each case would be assessed on its merits in light of ‘all relevant circumstances’.11

Further, and in response to the Commissioner’s argument that the claimed computing steps were not “foreign to the normal use of computers”, the judge strongly cautioned against any approach that introduces questions of whether a claim involves anything new and unconventional in a threshold subject matter enquiry. 


In all, the decision is encouraging for those seeking protection of computer implemented inventions. 

Precisely how encouraging, however, will depend on how the Patent Office proceeds in light of the decision, and how the Full Federal Court decides the Research Affiliates appeal.  

  1.  [2013] FCA 871 (30 August 2013)
  2. [2013] FCA 71(13 February 2013)
  3. National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252; Grant v Commissioner of Patents  (2006) 154 FCR 62
  4. RPL Central Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 871, [129]
  5. RPL Central, [144]
  6. RPL Central, [143]
  7. RPL Central, [142]
  8. RPL Central, [143]
  9. RPL Central, [146]
  10. RPL Central [157]
  11. RPL Central, [149] (citing Burroughs [1974] RPC 147 at 160, per Graham J)

Link to the decision: RPL Central Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2013] FCA 871

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© FPA Patent Attorneys | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

FPA Patent Attorneys

FPA Patent Attorneys on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.