Aristocrat 2025: updates in patenting computer implemented inventions in Australia from the Full Federal Court

UPDATE (5 February 2026): As of 5 February 2026 there is now definitive confirmation via the conclusion of the Aristocrat litigation that the law of patent eligibility returns to 'established principles', thus providing a more generous framework for patent applicants. Refer to commentary after 5 February 2026 that takes into consideration this important development.

Aristocrat's success means that patentability of computer-implemented inventions is significantly liberalised. After a long saga, across many cases in the Federal Court and High Court, the electronic gaming machines patents in question were found to be a manner of manufacture, and therefore representing patentable subject matter. While a very significant win, it should bring to a close an extended period in which the law diverged from traditionally understood principles of patentability for computer-implemented inventions.

While Aristocrat's patents are confined to electronic gaming machines, their patent disputes with the Patent Office are effectively a proxy for the treatment of how patent eligibility is assessed for all computer-implemented inventions and, consequently, of widespread interest.

Caution: look for updates on Special Leave to the High Court, and the outcome of any case that may arise. Even if the High Court accepts this case, it may well affirm Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 (Aristocrat 2025) as its reasoning follows the (evenly split) minority decisions ('allowing reasons') of three High Court Justices, namely Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat 2022). Plus, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ. form part of the current composition of the High Court, while Kiefel CJ, Gageler J and Keane J of the prevailing 'deciding reasons' have all since retired.

Welcome news for patent applicants

There is now (and possibly for the foreseeable future) a much simplified and more applicant-friendly consideration of the inherent patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

The favourable implications of Aristocrat 2025 may take a little while before they are fully digested and formally implemented in official Patent Office examination practice (via changes to the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure (PMPP)) but in the interim, individual examiners can be pressed to accept the current law.

The major breakthrough is this: no longer is an improvement in actual computing technology required to meet manner of manufacture requirements.

Instead, the test reverts to its traditional and long-standing basis: that an artificial state of affairs and a useful result suffices. This broader interpretation aligns with the leading and foundational authority on manner of manufacture, namely National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67 (NRDC).

Situation before Aristocrat 2025

Over the last ten years, the state of the law regarding patentability of software inventions, and other computer-implemented inventions, has seen a reinforcing series of decisions that were on the facts the 'right' decision, but erred in their legal reasoning, diverging from established legal principle with the consequence that patent applicants with computer-implemented inventions were unfairly penalised. In essence, applications that disclosed inventions that were new and inventive were failing to secure grant on account of being dismissed on manner of manufacture grounds. Over time, increasing numbers of applications were characterised as contributing mere abstract schemes operating on generic or at least known computer hardware. The insistence was that an actual inventive advance in the underlying hardware was required to secure a patent in this area of technology. This could not ultimately stand as it singled out digital technologies for exceptional treatment. It would be like saying a chemical plant using only conventional processing stages could never give rise to a patentable method or system.

Development of law with Aristocrat 2025

Aristocrat 2025 distinguishes the cases cited in the report. Aristocrat 2025 explicitly rejects consideration of substance divorced from form and also rejects using a laundry list of factors to assess inherent patentability. Aristocrat 2025 aligns with NRDC and cases such as IBM and CCOM, and expediency can be referred to as the NRDC/Aristocrat approach.

The Full Bench in Aristocrat 2025 considered whether or not it was bound by earlier Full Court decisions, and reasoned that under the Transurban principles there was no obligation in this respect owing to the presence of compelling reasons to depart from earlier decisions [114]. Further, the High Court being evenly split there is no ratio to be extracted and is similarly not bound to follow the prevailing 'deciding views'. Still, the Full Bench expressed the view that under Langley principles the Full Court should ensure consistency with the views or approach adopted by members of the High Court [115]–[116].  The consequence is Aristocrat 2025 aligned with the 'allowing views' expressed by the three High Court Justices Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ in Aristocrat 2022 at [95]–[156].

Delving deeper in the legal test for manner of manufacture

The surface level change is patentability reverts to the NRDC formulation of artificial state of affairs and useful result as the formulation for manner of manufacture. More has changed below the surface.

First, a manner of manufacture assessment involves characterising the claimed invention.

Now the assessment of the claimed invention involves considering the integers of the claim viewed as a whole, encompassing the combination of both the inventive and the non-inventive elements. This is important as Aristocrat 2022 developed the proposition that characterising the invention involved a consideration of the prior art. The implication is that conventional integers (for example, standard computing hardware) could be filtered out, and the invention could be considered in a reductive manner and thus characterised as an abstract idea.

Second, inventive step is not limited to computerisation. Formerly, there were a laundry list of factors to be considered and a requirement that invention must lie in computerisation. That is gone. Now, inventive step is restored to its broader, earlier understanding as reflected in IBM and CCOM.

Third, manner of manufacture is recognised as categorically distinct from prior art considerations. Previously there was a blurring of the distinction between prior art considerations and patent eligibility. Now it is affirmed as distinct—with the implication that a claim may now potentially lack an inventive step but still meet manner of manufacture requirements.