CQMS v Joy Global: the sensor test for software patents

This decision attracts interest as it is the first Patent Office hearing decision to consider the issue of patent eligibility since the conclusion of the landmark Aristocrat litigation. This decision also follows the release of the second substantive redrafting of Patent Office guidelines on computer-implemented inventions. This guidance was released on 3 July 2026 following consultation on the existing guidelines. Few were satisfied that the IP Australia guidelines accorded with the legal principles of Aristocrat, and fewer will be satisfied that the 3 July amendments have improved the situation. Applicants will however for the time being have to work with the current situation.

A Patent Office delegate has held that a software claim was not a manner of manufacture while a near-identical claim, adding only a sensor, was patentable. CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19, decided on 18 August 2026, is the first Patent Office hearing decision to apply Aristocrat.

CQMS opposed Joy Global's application AU 2018203749. The claimed software recommends when to replace wear parts on mining machines, weighing the rate of wear against downtime, material and operating costs.

One sensor, two outcomes

Claim 1 is a system that runs on a generic processor, and the wear part's dimension can be typed in by hand ([318]). The Delegate found the processor was common general knowledge ([319]) and that the claim met none of the further factors in IP Australia's Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure ([324], [327]–[332]). It was characterised as "a computerised decision matrix" ([333]), close to the "decision-making matrix" phrase used by the applicant's own expert ([312]).

Claim 14, a method claim, adds a wear detection device, which the Delegate read as an electronic sensor ([320]–[322]). A known sensor for measuring the part's current dimension was not proven to be common general knowledge ([322]), and the claim was characterised as "a method of using a new wear detection device" ([334]). In the alternative, the Delegate found its parts interacted interdependently, "analogous to Aristocrat" ([325]).

Claim 2 is claim 1 with a wear detection device added, and it was also held eligible ([336]). The cost-weighing that made claim 1 a "business scheme" is unchanged.

Patent eligible claims still failed on other grounds

The eligible claims failed anyway. The specification described a single LIDAR embodiment, which could not support a claim to "a wear detection device" ([233], [253]). Claim 1 fell on manner of manufacture alone.

The sensor step that made claim 14 eligible was also disclosed in a prior publication ([100]). It counted as "new" for eligibility because that publication was not proven to be common general knowledge ([322]). The claim was novel only for its "used pool", a set of records ([107]–[109]).

The Manual, not the Full Court

The reasons follow the headings of section 5.6.8.6 of the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure ([318]–[332]): first whether the claimed hardware is common general knowledge, then factors such as improved computer operation and a technical effect. The Full Court in Aristocrat [2025] FCAFC 131 asked a single question of the claim as a whole, and the High Court refused special leave because the Full Court had applied established principles ([2026] HCADisp 15 at [2]).

The decision framework recommended by the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure and echoed in this decision deviates from Aristocrat on many points. The focus on technical effect, whether key integers are CGK, for example, is not found in Aristocrat. IP Australia cites no case for that step, describing it as a preliminary pathway to more readily support patentability (consultation response, 3 July 2026).

What it means for applicants

Three practical drafting points follow from the decision:

• Claim where the data comes from. A wear detection device was the whole difference between claims 1 and 2.
• Describe it at the breadth claimed. Set out several ways of taking the measurement, not one.
• Claim the act as well as the advice. Claim 1 stopped at a recommendation, leaving the replacement itself outside the claim ([318]).