Under Australian law, there are no specific exclusions for software or methods that are implemented as computer software or a related product. Such inventions constitute patentable subject matter if what is claimed “as a matter of substance” is not a mere scheme, mere abstract idea, or mere information (see 5.6.8.4 Discoveries, Ideas, Scientific Theories, Schemes and Plans). Fundamentally, determining whether there is patentable subject matter in relation to a computer-implemented invention involves application of the considerations that were addressed by the High Court in National Research and Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67 (NRDC) and in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 (Myriad), and which apply for other categories of subject matter.

In NRDC it was made clear that the scope of the term “manner of manufacture” is to be approached by asking whether what is claimed is a proper subject for patentability according to the principles that have been developed. Myriad made clear the necessity to approach the concept of manner of manufacture through “case-by-case" development, applying a common law methodology. Following NRDC and Myriad, the two factors necessary for characterisation of an invention as a manner of manufacture are: whether there is an artificially created state of affairs; and whether the invention has economic utility.

A review of the case law shows that courts have sought to achieve coherence in the development of the concept of manner of manufacture for computer-implemented inventions. It would be incoherent for an unpatentable business method, scheme or game to be patentable merely because it is implemented in a computer, as the Full Court explained in Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (Research Affiliates) at [114]. The Full Federal Court said that while there would be physical effects present in the transformation of data and use of computer memory when a computer is programmed in a certain way, and while a computer itself is a physical product, treating those physical elements as satisfying the requirement for an artificial effect would involve a “mechanistic application” of that criterion that was not based on the substance of the invention.

More recently the Full Court in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 (Aristocrat ’25) has confirmed that a computer-implemented invention needs to be assessed as a matter of substance, that is, once it has been “properly characterised”, so as to determine whether it involves:

(i) an abstract idea which is manipulated on a computer – which is unpatentable; or

(ii) an abstract idea which is implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result – which is patentable.

A way of understanding the scope of the first category is that it recognises that the coherence of the law of manner of manufacture requires that an unpatentable method not be found patentable merely because it is implemented on a computer. To the extent that there is an artificial effect that is the necessary result of merely implementing an unpatentable method on a computer, that effect will not be a relevant artificial state of affairs – such effects may be changes that occur in a computer’s memory, or the incorporation within the claim of physical elements such as the computer. Something more is required.

Proper characterisation of the invention is always needed, and the Full Court in Aristocrat ’25 warned that a claim to a computer-implemented invention is also not necessarily unpatentable merely because it is possible to characterise the invention as involving the implementation of an idea in a computer using conventional computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions.

Guidance is provided below as to how an examiner may consider whether, applying a proper characterisation of the claimed invention, there is a relevant artificially created state of affairs.

Forms of computer implemented inventions

Computer implemented inventions may be claimed in different forms. For example:

a processing apparatus characterised by its method of operation;
software or programs in a machine-readable form causing a computer to operate in a particular way;
a computer, when programmed with code (source or executable), to operate in a particular way;
a computer implemented method; and
a particular product (for example an electronic gaming machine, washing machine, etc) comprising a computer processor.

Often computer-implemented inventions are defined by functional features, that is, by the action that is being carried out by a piece of computer equipment. Just because functional terminology is used in defining an invention does not mean the claimed invention is not a manner of manufacture. It is important to remember that the invention needs to be properly characterised. This characterisation involves an understanding of the claim as a whole. One should not place undue weight on the inventive aspects of a claim over non-inventive aspects and must give due recognition to all the physical elements which are fundamental to the invention’s operation (Aristocrat ‘25 at [127]).

Inventions found to constitute an abstract idea implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result

This section outlines examples of inventions found by the Federal Court as constituting an abstract idea implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result. Included are examples identifying reasons why the Court concluded that patentable subject matter was present.

In Aristocrat ’25 – The invention was directed to a game implemented on an electronic gaming machine.
As noted by the Full Court (at [127]):

“The characterisation adopted … reflects the emphasis in the specification not just on the feature game but also on the function and display of configurable symbols in relation to the feature game, and the integration of those elements in the interdependent player interface and game controller… Further, the allowing reasons (at [137]) point out that the configurable symbols and the feature games require implementation in the EGM, and in the operation of the EGM, they interact with, and are entirely dependent upon, other integers of the claim, especially the physical integers, and therefore are inextricably connected with the player interface.”

Reasoning supporting a finding of patentability included:

The function and integration of configurable symbols was important to player experience
The configurable symbols interacted with other integers, especially the physical integers and were therefore inextricably linked to the player interface
The invention was not merely a scheme or idea for a game that was separate from the external or artificial application of the game
The invention was to an improved/altered EGM
While EGM technology was well known, the invention was more than a mere abstract idea manipulated on generic computer technology

In International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 22 IPR 417 (IBM) the claimed invention was directed to the use of non-floating-point arithmetic to produce an improved curve on a display. Reasoning supporting a finding of patentability included:

While a standard computer was involved, the method improved the way in which the computer worked as a computer (because of its improved curve display)
Steps were foreign to the normal use of a computer
There was an artificial and useful result in the form of the improved curve display

In CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) FCA 1168 (CCOM) the invention used a particular method of characterisation of Chinese character strokes which was applied to an apparatus in such a way that the operation of a keyboard would enable the selection, through a computer, of the appropriate Chinese characters used for word processing. Reasoning supporting a finding of patentability included:

There was a requisite artificially created state of affairs of utility
The output on the screen interacted with other integers, in particular, the keys of the keyboard
The method involved the improved use of a keyboard/computer to generate Chinese characters for word processing and other applications

In UbiPark Pty Ltd v TMA Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 885 (UbiPark) the invention was directed towards a communications system, computer program and smartphone configured to determine signal strengths of entry and exit signals to control a user’s entry to and exit from a restricted area. Reasoning supporting a finding of patentability included:

The opening of entry and exit barriers was considered to be an artificial state of affairs with the useful result of allowing entry into and exit from a restricted area
There was an interrelationship between the physical components of the system

In Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc [2024] FCAFC 168 (Hytera) the invention was directed to a method of scanning used in a Time Division Multiple Access system in digital mobile radios to reduce the time required for completing scan operations. Reasoning supporting a finding of patentability included:

There was an improvement in the (computer) technology for undertaking communications using two-way radios
Technical means interacted to embody the invention by utilising the structure of data frames by which communications were carried in a digital communications device.

Inventions found to constitute an abstract idea manipulated on a computer

This section outlines examples of inventions found by the Federal Court to constitute an abstract idea manipulated on a computer. This category recognises inventions that will not satisfy the requirement of a relevant artificial effect. Included with each example are elements that the court found relevant to their determination.

In Research Affiliates the invention was directed towards a scheme for constructing data concerning a non-capitalisation weighted portfolio of assets. The invention involved a mathematical process operated within a single computer. Reasons why the invention was found unpatentable included:

The invention operated on a generic or general-purpose computer
It merely processed information
It involved no improvement of a computer
No steps foreign to the normal use of computers
No utilisation of an unusual technical effect

In Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central [2015] FCAFC 177 (‘RPL’) the invention was directed towards a scheme for assessing the competency or qualifications of people in accordance with recognised standards. The invention operated across networked computers to implement the method. Reasons why the invention was found unpatentable included:

The invention operated on generic or general-purpose computers
The computer was only required to retrieve and process information
It involved no improvement of the operation of a computer
The invention did not solve a technical problem in the computer (or outside the computer)

In Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v Infotrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (Encompass) the invention was directed towards a method and apparatus for displaying information to provide business intelligence. The invention involved interaction with a visualised network of information presented on a computer screen and operation across computer devices. Reasons why the invention was found unpatentable included:

The invention operated on generic or general-purpose computers
The computer merely gathered, processed and displayed information
It involved no improvement of the operation of a computer

In Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (Rokt) the invention was directed to a marketing scheme run across a series of networked computers which generated engagement offers tailored to the user. Reasons why the invention was found unpatentable included:

The invention operated on generic or general-purpose computers
The computer merely gathered, processed and displayed information
It involved no improvement of the operation of a computer
The invention solved a marketing problem, not a technical problem

In Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223 (Repipe) the invention involved the use of GPS-enabled mobile devices for dealing with risk management information. Reasons why the invention was found unpatentable included:

The invention operated on generic or general-purpose mobile computer
The computer merely gathered, processed and displayed information
It involved no improvement of the operation of a computer
The invention solved a business operations problem, not a technical problem

In Dei Gratia v Commissioner of Patents [2024] FCA 1145 (Dei Gratia) the invention was directed to an improved logistics method that used computer technology to optimise route information and facilitate delivery of goods. Reasons why the invention was found unpatentable included:

The physical outcomes of delivery of goods was not sufficiently directly related to the substance of the invention, and so was not a relevant artificial state of affairs
The computer merely retrieved and processed information
It involved no improvement of the operation of a computer
The invention did not solve a technical problem in the computer (or outside the computer)

The decision-making framework

Properly characterising the invention using the guidance below may involve turning to examples in the case law discussed above to guide decision making.

Understanding the physical elements of the claimed invention

In characterising the invention, it is important to first assess the nature of the physical elements that are present in the claim in the light of the common general knowledge (CGK), and consider whether the invention is to a known product or system that comprises a computer processor, or whether the physical elements define a new physical product or system in light of the CGK.

If a claim is to software alone, then it is likely to be defining something that can be run on a known computerised product or system (or at least include such use). In such a situation, consideration of the additional factors discussed below will be required.
Where the physical features of the claim are standard features of a known (CGK) computer or computerised product/system, and those standard features include a computer processor, then there will be a need to consider the additional factors discussed below. For example, Research Affiliates, RPL Central, and Repipe involved standard features of generic computers/mobile devices. That was also the case for IBM and CCOM. Aristocrat ‘25 involved the use of a standard electronic gaming machine that included a computer (the ‘game controller’).
If the physical features describe a new physical product or system (not CGK), and the claim defines a new combination having the required interaction between integers (and not a mere collocation), then there will be patentable subject matter, and the additional factors discussed below will not need to be considered. For example, a claim that involves a computer system that incorporates a new physical feature giving rise to a new computer as such will be patentable subject matter even where the claim includes method integers.

Factors relevant to characterising the claimed invention

There are various factors that may be relevant to characterising the invention where standard features of a known computerised product or system are involved (points a and b above). These factors include:

Whether the computerised product or system works in an improved or altered manner, noting that an invention is not patentable merely because a computer is programmed with a new method. This factor seeks to identify whether the computerised product or system works better or differently as a product generally, rather than in the execution of a specific method or scheme.
- Aristocrat ‘25 provides for an improved EGM (altered EGM) in the interaction of the method with the physical components, involving the display of “configurable symbols” relating to the playing of “feature games” to produce the improved engagement result. The Full Court considered that these interactions resulted in there being an “altered EGM”, which appeared to be based on it operating as an improved type of EGM in a general sense, analogous to IBM and CCOM.
- Each of IBM and CCOM involved a computer working in an improved manner as part of their general operation. Hytera similarly involved an invention that involved improved operation of the computerised components of a two-way radio system that improved how that system operated (the efficiency of sending the messages). This may be contrasted with the mere instructions to implement a specific method in a computer in Research Affiliates, RPL Central and Encompass.
Whether there is a relevant technical effect occurring outside a computerised product or system, or a technical problem is solved outside the computerised product or system.
- See for example UbiPark and the opening of the entry and exit barriers (a relevant specific external artificial effect)
- This may be contrasted with the delivery of goods to the optimum collection point in Dei Gratia, which was a less direct external effect, and was found not to be sufficient to satisfy the requirement for an artificial effect. It was found to be similar to the arrangement of exercise stations that would result from applying the computerised method in F45 Training Pty Ltd v Body Fit Training Company Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 96, which was also an external effect that was too indirect.
Whether a technical problem is solved with a computerised product or system.
- Hytera could also be considered under this factor. The improved efficiency helped solve a technical problem relating to the speed with which messages could be sent.
Even if a computer is essential for performing the invention (i.e. there is no practical “pen and paper” equivalent), that is not a sufficient factor to confer patentability; the computer must be more than an intermediary.
- See for example RPL Central in which the computer is an intermediary.

Example: Performing Business Interactions Using Computing Devices

Often a claim is directed towards aspects of business interactions and transactions performed using a computing device or devices. An example of a claim is provided below. It relates to the sharing of information between a customer and a merchant essentially using mobile phone technology.

A method of performing financial transactions, comprising:

receiving, by a processor, location information of a user from a user device;

determining, by the processor, a location of the user based on the location information;

determining, by the processor, whether one or more sellers are within a predetermined distance of the location of the user; and

communicating payment information of a selected seller from the one or more sellers to the user device if the selected seller is within the predetermined distance of the location of the user.

Performing electronic financial transactions on electronic devices and performing these transactions on devices which could determine user locations is generically claimed and described and the invention merely uses generic computer technology. Here, the “processor” and “user device” are merely performing their usual independent function, there being no improved operation of relevance.

The claim relates to a determination of whether a seller is within a predetermined distance of a user and subsequently communicating payment information to the user if the seller is within a certain distance of the user, merely implemented on a standard computer. It does not improve or alter the operation of a computer, nor does it address a technical problem. As a result, the invention is best characterised as a mere computer implemented business rule or scheme for determining when to share information.

However, if the invention determined from the specification as a whole related to the way that the position was determined in that there was an improvement in the technology used to carry out the method, a claim directed to this subject matter would likely be patentable. As the claim above does not include this improvement, a support objection might be a more appropriate primary objection in those circumstances (however examiners should still assess whether there is a manner of manufacture objection. See also MPP 3.3.2.1 Level of Detail in the Report).

Case Law Examples

International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 22 IPR 417

The use of a mathematical formula in a computer to produce an improved curve image was held to be patentable since the production of the improved curve image is a relevant commercially useful effect in computer graphics. Specifically, Burchett J found:

“Although there was nothing new about the mathematics of the invention what was new was the application of the selected mathematical methods to computer, and, in particular, to the production of the desired curve by the computer. This involved steps which were foreign to the normal use of computers and, for that reason, were inventive. A method of producing that by computer, which is novel and inventive, is entitled to the protection of the patent laws.”

The invention involved a standard computer. The use of floating-point arithmetic was common for processing such algorithms for generating curves (having problems of lack of speed and inaccuracy). This invention however, claimed that calculations were performed without the use of floating-point arithmetic. This integer arithmetic, as described in the specification, comprised a particular way of performing calculations within the computer that changed and improved the way a computer normally worked. It followed that the claim was directed to a process containing steps that was foreign to the normal use of computers.

Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc [2024] FCAFC 168

The patent in question relates to Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) technology which allows a frequency band within the radio frequency spectrum to be divided into timeslots so that more than one person can use the same channel. The patent seeks to address a problem of scanning time required to find activity of interest; by transmitting information from a base radio to a subscriber unit wherein the first information indicates certain activity is present, this information being compared to information prestored in the subscriber unit. If there is a match in these two pieces of information, then the subscriber unit locks onto the channel of interest. The Full Court referred to primary judge’s findings as follows:

“The primary judge found that the 355 patent improved the way a particular class of computers, being base stations and subscriber units, scan frequencies. His Honour reasoned that the problem of the scanning speed is a problem of computer programming and is relevantly indistinguishable to the problem in IBM of curve drawing on computers. Curve drawing on computers required the use of processing-expensive floating point arithmetic. This kind of floating point arithmetic was expensive in terms of system resources. The solution in that case, being the deployment of an algorithm which removed the need to use floating point arithmetic, resulted in an improvement in computer technology. His Honour said that the same was true in the context before him.

His Honour said that the problem which existed was the problem of how to improve scanning times in a TDMA system. The solution was the use of an activity indicating first information which could permit the abolition of the null ID and therefore permit compression of ID information in the second information. His Honour said that these are conceptually indistinguishable and that the 355 patent is plainly an improvement in computer technology.”

And concluded that:

“The 355 patent at its broadest discloses a method for improving scanning time. That is a manner of manufacture. It is not an abstract idea. The patent discloses and the relevant claims embody a technical means, utilising the structure of data frames by which communications are carried in a digital communications device, by which scanning time can be improved.”

In this example, while the physical technology present in the claim appears standard, the invention satisfies other factors discussed above in that it lies in the way that the computer/technology is improved and not in the mere use of a computer.

CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) FCA 1168

The described apparatus, in a broad sense, consisted of conventional computer equipment including a database, a visual display, and a keyboard. Generally, CCOM claimed an interface with a database that contained a data structure of Chinese language characters which encoded strokes by stroke type and in an order in which the strokes are written (if writing by hand). The claim also defined software that presented the strokes on the display for the user. The interface also provided a retrieval program and graphic representation of each character that enabled the user to select the character using the keyboard. The overall outcome was an efficient way of retrieving Chinese characters. Cooper J found that:

“The NRDC Case (102 CLR at 275-277) requires a mode or manner of achieving an end result which is an artificially created state of affairs of utility in the field of economic endeavour. In the present case, a relevant field of economic endeavour is the use of word processing to assemble text in Chinese language characters. The end result achieved is the retrieval of graphic representations of desired characters, for assembly of text. The mode or manner of obtaining this, which provides particular utility in achieving the end result, is the storage of data as to Chinese characters analysed by stroke-type categories, for search including ‘flagging’ (and ‘unflagging’) and selection by reference thereto.”

The invention operates on a standard computer. This invention appears to provide an interaction of the specific operation of the keyboard and the output on the screen, and thereby an altered computer system that facilitates the easier or improved finding of items in computer implemented word processing.

Ubipark Pty Ltd v TMA Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 885

The invention related to a communications system, computer program and smartphone configured to determine signal strengths of entry and exit signals to control a user’s entry to and exit from a restricted area. It further involved the determination of whether entry and exit criteria are met before generation and transfer of entry and exit request.

In finding the claims patentable the decision stated (emphasis added):

“It is necessary to start by characterising the invention. In substance, the claims are directed to a communications system, computer program and smartphone configured to determine signal strengths of entry signals and exit signals to control a user’s entry into and exit from a restricted area, in conjunction with the use of authorisation data.

While at one level the claims comprise a series of instructions to be executed by a computer, the invention as claimed does have some “concrete, tangible, physical, or observable effect” … namely the opening of the entry barrier and the exit barrier. While this is not explicitly stated in claims 1, 11 and 16, it flows from the references to generating and transferring an entry request and exit request, read in the context of the specification as a whole. Similarly, and for the same reasons, the invention as claimed constitutes an abstract idea that is “implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result”... The artificial state of affairs is the opening of the entry barrier and exit barrier. The useful result is that the user associated with a vehicle is granted entry into, and exit from, a restricted area.

“… Claim 1 is, in substance, to a system comprising those components, with an interrelationship between them. This is expressed in integers 1.3.1, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6 and 1.3.9, all of which refer to the communication system in the context of the computer program/smartphone…”

Example Patent Office Hearing Decisions

Bio-rad Laboratories, Inc. (2018) APO 24 (Patentable Subject Matter)

In Bio-Rad, the substance of the invention was not merely a scheme for a quality control strategy. The substance of the invention was a method that determined an optimal quality control strategy that reduced the number of tests that needed to be carried out and thereby reduced the number of reference samples that were used. The claims were considered to provide a material/technical effect which was reduced material use.

In this decision it was confirmed that in circumstances where the technical problem solved lies outside a computer, decisions involving computer-implemented schemes may not be particularly instructive in determining patentability. Research Affiliates and RPL Central are examples of inventions directed to computer-implemented business methods and in those cases, there is a need for the substance of the invention to lie in the computerisation for patentability to be present. Bio-Rad clarifies that in circumstances where the material effect of an invention lies outside the computer, it is not necessary to separately consider any technical improvement to computer technology.

Facebook, Inc. (2020) APO 19 (Patentable Subject Matter)

This decision relates to the idea of addressing technical problems in the architecture of computer programs. In this decision, the delegate identified a business problem being the need to measure an advertising conversion event however the Delegate also noted that in mobile devices, native applications can be “sandboxed” and thus cannot access the cookies of other applications. When advertising applications this presents a problem as one application which communicates to an online system cannot determine if a user has downloaded another application as a result of an advertisement. The delegate noted that the state of the art appeared not to involve the step of downloading a set of instructions that included instructions to write into a shared memory and another application accessing that shared memory and sending information back to an online system along with user data.

Similarly to the IBM case, the claimed invention does not appear to involve any physical features that do not relate to standard computer technology. The delegate concluded that sandboxing of native applications is a technical limitation faced by application developers and found that the manner in which the shared memory was accessed represented a technical improvement in the functioning of the device.

Apple, Inc. (2022) APO 83 (Patentable Subject Matter)

This matter relates to graphical user interfaces which use biometric sensors as inputs to manipulate these user interfaces. The inventions involve standard device technology. Claim 1 was found by the delegate to be directed towards the redaction of electronic documents being viewed on an electronic device with a display and a biometric sensor. In the claimed invention first and second information items of the document being viewed on the display were redacted in a manner so that only identifying information of both the information items was displayed while the content information of both the information items were hidden from view. While viewing the redacted document the user could unhide and view the content information of both information items simply by authenticating their credentials using the biometric sensor of the device. He found this was a mere scheme for revealing redacted information subsequent to authentication.

Dependent claims were directed towards arrangements in which the biometric input controlled the manner in which redacted information was revealed and also the locked condition of the device. In particular, additional claims defined that the unredacted version of the first and second information items was only displayed as long as the biometric sensor continued to detect the biometric input and once the biometric input ceased, the display reverted to the redacted version of the first and second information items. As for Aristocrat ’25, the method elements required interaction with physical components of the computer system. The delegate found these features were a technical effect that related to the means for viewing information. As a matter of substance, the claims including these features were found to define patentable subject matter.

The Regents of The University of California (2022) APO 77 (Not Patentable Subject Matter)

This matter relates to improving cognitive ability using a method implemented in a standard computer where a variety of information is shown, inputs are received from an individual, and an analysis is performed. More specifically, in a first step a first task of a certain difficulty was presented to an individual using the computing device and data was obtained by the computer via an input of the individual’s response to this task. An interference was then placed to distract the individual from the first task, and a further response was received via input from the user to the first task in the presence of the distraction. In doing so, differential data was available to compare the individual’s abilities with and without distraction. After receipt of inputs, the computer then analysed the individual’s performance by looking at the difference in the inputs. The process of presenting a task with and without interference was then iterated, seeking inputs again with and without interference wherein the difficulty of the task was adjusted on the basis of the earlier analysis and the task presented with adjusted difficulty. Ultimately this process of iteration and adjusted difficulty was used to generate an output that was indicative of cognitive ability. Such an invention does not involve the interaction of features so as to constitute an implementation on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and useful result. It was merely the operation of a method/game on a generic computer.

This invention was found not patentable in the following terms:

“While I acknowledge measurable effects on brain function by the present invention when embodied and implemented, I cannot agree that this lends sufficient force to satisfy the requirements of NRDC. There is no particular medical or physical condition targeted by the present invention, instead the invention seeks to determine and improve cognitive ability in the most general of senses. Alternatively worded, the invention improves the “intelligence” of an individual through focus on a particularly arranged challenge. This challenge is effective at enabling an individual to practice operating in the presence of distraction and to improve their skill in this area, but it does just that, improve the mental ability of a person. I cannot see how improving mental ability in the general sense provides for a material advantage in the useful as opposed to fine arts. A change in physical state of the brain on my reckoning, would be measurable for any number of human physical and intellectual pursuits once practiced to a sufficient degree. While it may be inventive to drive training and improvement on the basis of the described “interference cost”, I see it as purely a matter of intellect to practice your skills in the presence of designed interference. No particular physical or concrete phenomenon is identified in the present invention that is the target of the method, and contrary to the submission of the applicant I cannot distinguish the present invention from a scheme or plan of enhancing cognitive function such as by instructing the individual to learn a language, perform crossword puzzles, or to play sudoku to stall cognitive decline.”

Amended Reasons

Amended Reason	Date Amended
Updating formatting at [127] paragraph	16 Mar 2026
Updating content in view of Aristocrat decision ([2025] FCAFC 131)	16 Mar 2026
Updated content.	14 Oct 2025
Added note banner about page content being under review.	17 Sep 2025
Case law examples updated to include content relating to Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc 2024 FCAFC 168 with additional minor amendments to subheading titles	20 Feb 2025
Additional discussion added regarding various APO decisions in relation to MOM	04 Dec 2024
	18 Oct 2023
Published for testing	06 Jun 2023

5.6.8.6 Computer Implemented Inventions, Mere Schemes, and Business Methods

Also in this Chapter:

Key Legislation:

Related Chapters:

On this page

Introduction