The Research Affiliates
decision that was handed down last November (2014) by the court of Appeal of the Federal Court has been much on my mind lately. In the last few weeks I've attended two seminars where speakers made mention of the case. In the first seminar the speaker continually mixed "manner of manufacture" and "inventive step" concepts, contrary to the judgment in RA
and (also contrary to Justice Gummow's teachings in Doric
) and even more fundamentally, contrary to the provisions of the Patents Act! In the second seminar the speaker advised us that the Australian court had approved the methodology set out in the US Supreme court for determining patent eligible / non-eligible claims, which I don't think is correct either. Neither speaker pointed out that toward the end of the Research Affiliates
decision there is a very helpful list of "does" and "don'ts" when drafting IT related patent specifications.
03 September, 2015