/>i
The Full Federal Court recently issued a game changing decision in Aristocrat v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131, which has major implications for the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
This decision is the latest in a long string of court decisions between Aristocrat and the Patent Office, including a Full Federal Court decision rejecting Aristocrat’s innovation patents for lacking patentable subject matter, and a split High Court decision which failed to provide guidance on the issue. On Tuesday 16 September 2025, the Full Federal Court rejected its own previously-adopted “two-step” test, following criticism by the High Court. The previous approach, while intended to simplify the analysis, was found to be overly rigid and narrow, and not aligned with established authority.
Instead, the Full Court reaffirmed principles from National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (NRDC), which remain central to determining whether an invention is patentable subject matter. The key question is whether the invention, properly characterised, is:
- An abstract idea manipulated on a computer (not patentable), or
- An abstract idea implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result (patentable).
This approach shifts the focus away from whether the invention improves computer technology and toward a more holistic characterisation of the invention. The Court emphasised that patentability should not be denied simply because the invention uses conventional hardware or software. What matters is the combination of elements and whether they produce a new and useful result.
For patent applicants, the decision is a reminder to avoid rigid formulae and instead assess the invention in its entirety. The presence of known components does not preclude patentability if the claimed combination yields a practical application.
This decision provides welcome clarity and reinforces that innovation in applied contexts, such as gaming systems and other computer-related fields, can be patentable.
