10 December 2025
For years, Australian innovators have faced uncertainty over whether computer-implemented inventions — software-based systems, digital platforms, or automated processes — can actually be patented.
That confusion stemmed from the High Court’s 3-3 split in the Aristocrat Technologies case back in 2022, which left no binding precedent and plenty of unanswered questions.
Now, a new Full Court decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 has finally brought some clarity — and good news for software and technology businesses.
What the Court Decided
The Full Court has confirmed that a computer-implemented invention doesn’t need to advance computer technology itself to be patentable.
In other words, you don’t have to invent a new computer — it’s enough that the way your idea is implemented on a computer produces a useful and concrete result, even if it uses standard hardware.
The Court preferred the reasoning of three High Court judges from the earlier split, who said an invention can be patentable where the claimed system creates an “artificial state of affairs” — meaning a practical, technical outcome that didn’t exist before.
The Court also rejected the older, overly rigid approach that required a “technological advance.” Instead, it asked a simpler question:
Is the claimed invention just using a computer to process an abstract idea — or is it using the computer to produce something useful?
Why It Matters
This decision marks a return to first principles under NRDC, allowing greater flexibility for modern inventions that rely on digital or automated systems.
For technology companies, this is a major step forward. It means:
- Software that delivers a tangible outcome can qualify as a patentable invention.
- You don’t need to show a hardware breakthrough or new computer function.
- The focus is on whether the invention creates a new and useful digital state of affairs.
The Full Court reaffirmed that the old refusal cases (like RPL Central, Encompass, and Rokt) remain valid because they were based on abstract business schemes, not genuine implementations producing a technical effect.
By contrast, Aristocrat’s system — an electronic gaming machine with feature games and configurable symbols — was found to produce a concrete, interactive digital environment and thus qualified as a patentable “manner of manufacture.”
What Happens Next
The decision is a strong win for Australia’s software and digital innovation sectors, signalling a more balanced and commercially realistic approach to patent eligibility.
The Commissioner may still seek special leave to appeal to the High Court — but for now, the message is clear: you don’t need a new computer to have a patentable computer-implemented invention.
Protect Your Digital Innovation
If your business develops software, digital platforms, or AI-enabled technology, this decision could expand what’s protectable under patent law.
IP Solved helps Australian innovators and tech companies secure, manage, and defend patents across software, electronics, and emerging technologies.
Talk to the team at IP Solved to find out how this ruling affects your innovation strategy.
