IP Australia has updated its Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure in relation to the examination of computer-implemented inventions. The update follows the Full Federal Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 (Aristocrat 25), which we discussed in a previous article, and seeks to clarify the approach taken by the Australian Patent Office when assessing whether computer-implemented inventions constitute patentable subject matter.
The amendments relate primarily to section 5.6.8.6 – Computer Implemented Inventions of the Manual. The updated guidance is intended to assist examiners and applicants in distinguishing between inventions that merely implement an abstract idea or scheme using a computer, which is not patentable, and inventions in which an abstract idea is implemented on a computer in a manner that produces an artificial state of affairs and a useful result, and may therefore constitute patentable subject matter.
Following the High Court’s refusal of special leave to appeal in Aristocrat 25, IP Australia reviewed and updated its Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure on 16 March 2026 to reflect the Full Court’s decision.
Given the significant interest in the decision and its implications for computer-implemented inventions, IP Australia undertook an additional public consultation to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the updated guidance. IP Australia received and considered 11 submissions, and further amendments to the Manual were published on 3 July 2026.
The consultation materials, including published submissions and the consultation response, are available at IP Australia’s consultation page.
Following consideration of stakeholder submissions, IP Australia published its consultation response outlining the key issues raised and the amendments and clarifications made to the Manual. The key themes addressed by IP Australia include:
The Manual has been updated to more closely reflect the Full Court’s reasoning in Aristocrat 25. IP Australia removed references to a “relevant artificial effect” and the need for “something more” than computer implementation, noting that these concepts were not directly reflected in the case law. However, the Manual continues to emphasise that an otherwise unpatentable method or scheme does not become patentable merely because it is implemented using a computer.
IP Australia confirmed that earlier Full Federal Court decisions remain relevant when assessing patentable subject matter, but should be applied with caution. The updated Manual reinforces that the assessment should remain focused on the approach set out in Aristocrat 25. It also clarifies that patentability of computer-implemented inventions does not require an “advance in computer technology”.
The Manual now clarifies the purpose of considering physical features of a claimed invention against the common general knowledge (CGK). This consideration may, in appropriate cases, provide a preliminary pathway to establish patentability where the invention is directed to a new physical computerised product or system (that is, not forming CGK). Where further analysis is required, examiners must consider all claim integers together, including how those integers interact, rather than isolating individual features.
IP Australia clarified that the updated guidance is not intended to impose minimum requirements or a higher threshold for patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Rather, the guidance is intended to assist in applying the existing manner of manufacture test. IP Australia confirmed that computer-implemented inventions require unique consideration to ensure that unpatentable methods and schemes are not monopolised merely because they are implemented using computer technology.
IP Australia replaced references to “identifying the substance of the invention” with “characterising the invention as a matter of substance”. This change reinforces that examiners should assess the claimed invention as a whole, including how the claim integers interact, rather than focusing on subsets of claim features.
The updated Manual confirms that computer-implemented inventions continue to be assessed under the established principles of manner of manufacture, including whether the invention involves an artificially created state of affairs and a useful result as established by the High Court in National Research and Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252.
Following Aristocrat 25, the assessment requires the claimed invention to be properly characterised to determine whether it is:
• an abstract idea that is merely manipulated on a computer (which is not patentable); or
• an abstract idea that is implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result (which constitutes patentable subject matter).
The updated Manual emphasises that the assessment involves properly characterising the claimed invention which involves understanding the substance of the claim as a whole.
The Manual identifies a number of considerations that may assist in characterising the invention and determining whether the claimed invention constitutes patentable subject matter. Some notable considerations include:
A significant feature of the updated Manual is the emphasis placed on properly characterising the claimed invention as a matter of substance. Proper characterisation of the claimed invention is central to determining whether the claimed invention is, in substance, directed merely to an unpatentable scheme, abstract idea or information implemented using a computer, or instead to a patentable computer-implemented invention that produces an artificial state of affairs and a useful result.
Importantly, characterisation requires consideration of the claim as a whole. All claim integers must be considered, including the way in which they interact and operate together in practice. Physical features should not be disregarded merely because they are individually known, nor should undue weight be placed on those aspects of the claim thought to provide the inventive contribution. The specification is also relevant, including how it describes the invention and the substantive aspects of its operation.
The revised Manual explains that consideration of the claimed physical computerised product or system against the common general knowledge can assist in characterising the invention. Where the claimed physical system is itself not part of the CGK, that may indicate that the invention is, in substance, directed to a patentable technological product or system rather than merely an abstract scheme implemented using known computer technology.
However, where the physical features of the claim are standard features of a known computer or computerised product or system (that is, CGK), further consideration of the substance of the invention will generally be required. Examples include the server communicating with GPS-enabled personal computing devices (including smartphones) considered in Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223, where the physical computer architecture was CGK, and the CGK electronic gaming machine considered in Aristocrat 25, which could itself be characterised as a computer or, alternatively, as including a computer.
Importantly, this is not an assessment of novelty or inventive step. Rather, consideration of the CGK in this context assists in characterising the invention and determining whether the physical elements of the claim indicate that the invention is, in substance, more than an unpatentable scheme or idea implemented using known computer technology.
Whether the computerised product or system works in an altered or improved manner
Patentability may be supported where the computerised product or system works differently or better as a product generally. This is contrasted with a situation where the computer is different or better only because it is executing a new specific method or scheme that is itself unpatentable.
A relevant effect outside the computerised system, or the resolution of a technical problem through the computerised system, may support a finding that the invention involves more than merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer.
Importantly, however, one of the significant outcomes of the consultation process is that a technical effect or the solution of a technical problem is no longer presented as a requirement for patentability. Rather, these are considerations that may assist in properly characterising the invention.
The revised Manual reinforces the importance of drafting specifications and claims that clearly explain how a computer-implemented invention operates in practice, including the interaction between its physical and functional features and the result produced by that interaction, rather than merely describing a business, information-processing or other abstract concept carried out using generic computer technology.
While the revised Manual does not alter the underlying legal principles established by the courts, it provides useful clarification of the way in which IP Australia intends to apply those principles in practice. In particular, the revised guidance emphasises that the assessment of computer-implemented inventions turns on properly characterising the claimed invention as a matter of substance. For applicants, this highlights the importance of drafting specifications and claims that clearly articulate the substance of the invention, how its various features interact, and the practical result produced by their operation.
If you would like further information about the patentability of computer-implemented inventions in Australia, or in relation to IP Australia’s updated guidance, please contact Daniel McKinley or Dr Catrina Olivera.
We are proud members of
Office
Level 1/98 Riley Street
East Sydney NSW 2010
Australia
GPO Box 683
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
Contact
