No second look: High Court refusal signals stability for computer‑implemented inventions

The Full Court’s decision

In our earlier article, we reported on the Full Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 (Aristocrat ’25 ), which endorsed a more favourable test for the patentability of CIIs in Australia. The Full Court’s decision gave rise to several important points for guiding the assessment of CIIs with respect to patentable subject matter, including:

• rejecting the previous approach of assessing CIIs based on whether the invention was an “advance in computer technology”;¹
• endorsing a more flexible test that includes assessing whether an invention is an abstract idea which is manipulated on a computer (not patentable) or an abstract idea which is implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result (patentable);²
• reaffirming that claims must be assessed in their entirety, not dissected into inventive vs. non-inventive parts;³ and
• recognising the importance of physical features, emphasising that characterisation should give due recognition to those physical elements which are non-inventive, yet fundamental to the operation of the invention.⁴

IP Australia’s response to the Full Court’s decision

Following the Full Court’s decision, IP Australia revised its patent examination guidelines in October 2025 to include the reasoning from Aristocrat ‘25 as part of the broader framework of Full Court guidance on patentable subject matter. The update integrated Aristocrat ’25 into the existing body of legal authorities that guide patentable subject matter assessment rather than giving due weight to Aristocrat ’25 establishing a new test for CIIs.

At the same time as updating the examination guidance, the Commissioner of Patents sought special leave to appeal the Full Court’s decision to the High Court of Australia on the basis that a further appeal would address broader concerns around achieving a clear and consistent test for assessing CIIs.⁵

High Court’s refusal

The High Court of Australia has now refused the Commissioner of Patents’ application for special leave to appeal the Full Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 (Aristocrat ’25). The refusal is unusual in its lack of brevity, providing positive endorsement of the Full Court’s decision.⁶ The High Court found that the Full Court had applied established principles concerning the assessment of manner of manufacture and reached a unanimous and clear conclusion as to characterisation.⁷

What happens next?

While we have seen some shift towards more favourable patentable subject matter outcomes for computer‑implemented inventions following the initial examination guideline updates in October, many applications have still been encountering uncertainty and inconsistent examination outcomes.

However, the High Court’s endorsement of the Full Court’s decision in Aristocrat ’25 should see IP Australia now give due weight and apply consistently the approved approach to assessing patent eligibility.

In fact, IP Australia has since released the statement: “We are working closely with a range of stakeholders and will ensure that our practice, and the Manual, reflects the Full Federal Court’s decision in this matter”⁸, signalling that changes are already underway.

However, and as with any significant shift in case law, applicants should remain mindful that changes in examination practice take time to filter through the system. While the decision is a positive step towards promoting innovation in computing and digital technologies, it is still recommended that patent applications describe inventions with sufficient technical detail to highlight technical effects and useful results that support patent eligibility both in Australia and abroad.

Further advice

For support in securing protection for computer-implemented inventions or adapting drafting and prosecution strategies in light of the post‑Aristocrat ‘25 landscape, please reach out to our experts.