24 November 2025
Australia’s patent landscape is evolving — and not always in ways that make life easier for innovators. A recent legal trend known as the “relevant range” concept has begun to reshape how courts assess whether a patent specification is sufficiently enabling.
This development, drawn from the UK’s Regeneron decision and adopted by Australia’s Full Federal Court in Jusand Nominees Pty Ltd v Rattlejack Innovations Pty Ltd (2023), could have far-reaching consequences for anyone drafting or defending patents with broad or functional claims.
What Are “Relevant Ranges”?
In simple terms, a “relevant range” refers to any feature of a patent claim — expressed or implied — where the variation within that feature significantly affects how well the invention works.
For example, if a claim covers a device that can be made from different materials, and the choice of material changes the invention’s performance, that material choice may be treated as a relevant range.
If the patent specification doesn’t teach a skilled person how to make the invention work across that entire range, the claim may be found insufficient — even if at least one version of the invention clearly works.
That’s exactly what happened in Jusand. The invention involved a safety spear for drill rigs. The patent described using steel, but the claim didn’t limit the material. The court found that while the invention worked with steel, it didn’t enable a skilled person to make it from other materials, like plastic, without undue effort. As a result, the claim was held invalid for lack of sufficiency.
Why It Matters
Since Jusand, patent challengers in Australia have increasingly argued that broad or functional claim features — such as “a material”, “a range”, or “a composition” — should be treated as “relevant ranges”.
This poses real risks for patentees, especially in fields like biotechnology, materials science, and pharmaceuticals, where claims often rely on principles of general application.
The problem is that this approach effectively introduces a retroactive test for sufficiency: a patent could later be invalidated if a challenger proves that part of the claimed range wasn’t actually enabled at the filing date. That undermines a long-standing principle of the patent system — the “patent bargain” — which encourages disclosure today in exchange for protection tomorrow.
In other words, inventors may end up punished for being broad or ambitious in their claims, even when they’ve genuinely advanced the art.
Where Things Stand
In the UK, courts initially applied Regeneron cautiously, suggesting that ordinary functional claim language wouldn’t usually amount to a “relevant range.” But the concept has recently resurfaced in cases like DSM v Algal Omega 3 Ltd (2025), where a patent on microbial oil extracts failed because the specification didn’t explain how to reproduce the invention across all possible strains.
Australia, meanwhile, appears to be following the UK down this path. For now, both the courts and IP Australia are applying the “relevant range” reasoning broadly, leaving patentees facing uncertainty.
What Innovators Should Do
Until the High Court or Parliament clarifies the law, innovators should be proactive.
When preparing patent specifications, ensure that:
-
Key variables are clearly supported and enabled across the range claimed.
-
Descriptive or functional language is backed by concrete examples and experimental data.
-
Any general principle claimed is realistic and demonstrably workable for the full scope.
This is especially important for emerging technologies, where the temptation to draft broad, future-proof claims must be balanced with the risk of later sufficiency attacks.
The Takeaway
The “relevant range” doctrine doesn’t rewrite Australia’s patent law entirely — but it raises the bar for how thoroughly an invention must be disclosed. For applicants, that means more careful drafting, more supporting data, and more strategic foresight.
In an era of stricter patent scrutiny, clarity and precision are everything.
If your patent portfolio includes broad or functional claims — or if you’re facing a sufficiency challenge — IP Solved can help.
Our patent experts work across Australia, New Zealand, and global jurisdictions to strengthen specifications, manage risk, and protect your innovation from emerging legal traps.
