High Court of Australia refuses special leave to reconsider the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
The High Court of Australia has refused an application by the Commissioner of Patents for special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131.
This brings a significant chapter to a close in the long-running saga (since the Patent Office rejected Aristocrat’s patents in 2018) over the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (CIIs) in Australia, particularly those relating to electronic gaming machines (EGMs).
In the 2025 Full Federal Court decision, the Court (Beach, Rofe and Jackman JJ) unanimously held that the relevant claims were a ‘manner of manufacture’ under s18(1A)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). It rejected the earlier “two-step test” from the 2021 Full Court majority, instead returning to foundational principles from the seminal NRDC (1959) case — focusing on whether the invention produces an artificial state of affairs with a useful result, especially where that result is tied to the operation of a physical device like a computer or gaming machine.
The Commissioner sought special leave to appeal shortly after the Full Court ruling (October 2025), and IP Australia updated its examination Manual to reflect the decision while pursuing the appeal, with an interpretation leaning toward maintaining the status quo in examination practice rather than acknowledging the Full Court’s definitive rejection of the legacy two-step test in the 2025 decision.
The High Court has today declined to re-hear the matter. In refusing the Commissioner’s application with costs, the High Court reasoned:
In light of the background to this application, there is insufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court. A grant of special leave to appeal is not in the interests of the administration of justice in circumstances in which that Full Court applied established principles concerning the assessment of manner of manufacture and reached a unanimous and clear conclusion as to characterisation. There is therefore no utility in a grant of special leave to consider the operation of rules of precedent concerning s 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act.
Key implications for Australian patent practice:
- Greater certainty and a more applicant-friendly approach for CIIs, software-related inventions, and innovations implemented via conventional hardware (no need for an “advance in computer technology” per se).
- Examiners and practitioners should now apply the NRDC principles more flexibly, looking to concrete, practically useful outcomes rather than rigid threshold tests.
- While not every CII will automatically succeed in satisfying the patentability requirements in Australia (novelty, inventive step, etc., remain), the subject matter eligibility hurdle is sensibly lowered by 2025 Full Federal Court decision compared to post-2021 practice.
This outcome provides welcome news for innovators in gaming, fintech, AI, and other digital tech fields after years of uncertainty.
If you have any questions about the patentability of computer‑implemented inventions in Australia, please contact the author Phil Burns – phil.burns@wrays.com.au.