Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
BioBlast®
Biosimilars Deals 2023
Biosimilars Deals 2024
Chris Vindurampulle
Diversity
Intranet
Masterclasses
Other Podcasts
Other Updates
Our Awards
Patent Case Summaries
Patent Litigation
Patents
Paul Johns
PipCast®
PTE
Trade Marks
Webinars
Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (No 3) [2021] FCA 31: Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223

Full Court finds another computer-implemented scheme unpatentable

by | Dec 8, 2021

Date: 29 January 2021
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Judge: McKerracher J

Date: 08 December 2021
Court: Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Judges: Perram, Nicholas and Burley J

Background

Repipe Pty Ltd (Repipe)’s two innovation patents, Australian Patent 2017100560 and Australian Patent 2017100943 (Patents) were granted in 2017. Each patent claimed an invention relating to the sharing of workplace health and safety documents with staff in the field, and completion by the staff of such documents, using computer technology. The invention purported to be an advance over paper-based systems, with the additional advantages of real-time updates and location information.

No substantive examination is conducted of innovation patents before grant. However in order to  enforce an innovation patent, examination must be requested. In this case, examination was requested at the time of filing. After a hearing, the Patents were revoked in 2018 by the Australian Patent Office on the basis that the inventions as claimed were not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of  s18(1A)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Act).

Repipe appealed to the Federal Court. In that proceeding (Repipe No 1),1 McKerracher J agreed that the inventions as claimed were not a manner of manufacture. His Honour however gave Repipe leave to amend the claims to overcome this deficiency, while expressing reservations as to whether this was
possible.

Key Issues

In the current decision (Repipe No 3), McKerracher J considered lengthy claim amendments seeking to add significant detail to the configuration requirements of the server or smartphone used in the  invention, and incorporating a GPS tracking feature. Repipe argued that the addition of this technical material overcame the manner of manufacture objections.

McKerracher J found that the amendments were insufficient to do so. In essence, his Honour’s original reservations were borne out, as the amendments did not change the substance of the  invention. Arguments by Repipe that the Full Court’s application of a ‘two stage test’ in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd2 and/or Burley J’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents3 (both handed down since Repipe No 1), should affect the outcome were rejected, as a matter of principle and because such arguments were properly a matter for appeal of the original decision. It was clear that McKerracher J agreed with the Commissioner’s submissions that in truth, Repipe was seeking to reopen aspects of the original decision.

Outcome

In the Full Court, Perram J (Nicholas and Burley JJ concurring) upheld the first instance decision in  Repipe No 3, finding that the invention did not constitute an advance in technology, but was rather  ‘deployment of existing technology for a useful purpose’.

Repipe sought to draw an analogy with the Aristocrat case. By the time judgment was handed down in
Repipe No 3, the Full Court had overturned Burley J’s decision in Aristocrat.4  However in any event, the Full Court in Repipe No 3 concluded that there was no analogy with the facts of Aristocrat. Repipe’s  invention, being implemented via standard mobile devices and servers, comprised a mere use of  existing technology rather than an advance on it.

As to the proposed amendments, Perram J concluded that the attempt to amend was “inherently  unsound”, since the assessment of the invention was a question of substance, not form. ‘Tinkering’ with the form of the patent could not solve the underlying issue since the amendments would need to  transform the nature of the invention, and to achieve this, the amendments would fall foul of s102 of  the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

Implications

Repipe No 3 joins an increasingly long line of Full Court decisions in which computer implemented inventions have been found unpatentable, and it is becoming clear that an advance in the field of  computer technology is key to patentability.

Repipe has since filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, as has Aristocrat in its case, with Aristocrat’s application already granted. At least the Aristocrat case will therefore be heard by the High Court. We are hopeful that this will add further clarity in this area.

 

1. Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2019] FCA 1956
2. [2020] FCAFC 86
3. [2020] FCA 778
4. [2021] FCAFC 202. See our analysis of this case on pages 12-13.

Naomi Pearce

Naomi Pearce

CEO, Executive Lawyer (AU, NZ), Patent & Trade Mark Attorney (AU, NZ)

Naomi is the founder of Pearce IP, and is one of Australia’s leading IP practitioners.   Naomi is a market leading, strategic, commercially astute, patent lawyer, patent attorney and trade mark attorney, with over 25 years’ experience, and a background in molecular biology/biochemistry.  Ranked in virtually every notable legal directory, highly regarded by peers and clients, with a background in molecular biology, Naomi is renown for her successful and elegant IP/legal strategies.

Among other awards, Naomi is ranked in Chambers, IAM Patent 1000, IAM Strategy 300, is a MIP “Patent Star”, and is recognised as a WIPR Leader for patents and trade marks. Naomi is the 2023 Lawyers Weekly “IP Partner of the Year”, the 2022 Lexology client choice award recipient for Life Sciences, the 2022 Asia Pacific Women in Business Law “Patent Lawyer of the Year” and the 2021 Lawyers Weekly Women in Law SME “Partner of the Year”.  Naomi is the founder of Pearce IP, which commenced in 2017 and won 2021 “IP Team of the Year” at the Australian Law Awards.

Get our Pearce IP Blogs & BioBlast® sent directly to your inbox

Subscribe to our Pearce IP Blogs and BioBlast® to receive our updates via email.

Our Latest News