For the first time since the landmark
If we look back to the Aristocrat case, the question of whether a computer-implemented invention was patentable was left unclear due to a 3-3 split in the decision.
In the recent3 case -
In this case,
These patents related to a technology which allowed a frequency band within the radio frequency spectrum to be divided into timeslots so that more than one person could use the same channel at the same time. This technology was known as Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA).
The three patents were directed to methods which improved the efficiency of the TDMA technique. The first patent, No. 2005275355 ('355 Patent'), was a method and system which improved the time taken to scan a channel to determine whether there was activity on that channel. The second patent, No. 2009298764 ('764 Patent'), was for a method for efficiently synchronising to a desired timeslot, and the third patent, No. 2006276960 ('960 Patent'), was for a method and system for accessing a base station.
In its suit, Motorola asserted that
It then submitted that the methods claimed, as a matter of substance, was a scheme, working directions or directions for use, rather than an 'improvement in computer technology'. It did not involve or contribute to any new hardware or software. The patent was merely a method achieved by programming existing hardware to carry out specified steps.
In considering the issue of patentability, Perram J, acknowledged4 that it was accepted that a computer-implemented invention would be patentable if, in substance, it constituted an improvement in computer technology rather than a use of that technology, and referenced a number of prior cases supporting that statement. Further, Perram J stated that neither the Federal Court decision nor the
In applying this position, Perram J rejected
This decision, together with another recent decision in UbiPark6 provides some clarity that a computer implemented method, constituting a new method, even if carried out on a known piece of hardware, can be for a manner of manufacture and is thus patentable subject matter.
It will be seen whether this position changes or is further reinforced if either of these cases is appealed.
Footnotes
1
2Commissioner of Patents v
3Note that while this case was decided in
4
5ibid at [358]
6
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr Martin Pannall
Madderns Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys
Level 4
5000
Tel: 88311 8311
Fax: 88311 8300
E-mail: Megan.Ryder@madderns.com.au
URL: www.madderns.com.au
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source