Every patent application filed in Australia must clear a deceptively simple hurdle: the invention must be a ‘manner of manufacture’ within the meaning of the Statute of Monopolies.[1]
The long-running litigation of Aristocrat v Commissioner of Patents[1] has thrown this basic concept back into the lights, given its impact on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. But what is a ‘manner of manufacture’?
This phrase remains the gatekeeping concept for what can and cannot be patented under Australian patent law. It sits alongside novelty[2] and inventive step[3] as one of the core requirements for a valid patent, but unlike those requirements, it asks a more fundamental question: Is this the kind of thing the patent system is meant to protect?
For businesses assessing freedom to operate, for researchers commercialising new technology, and for investors evaluating the strength of a target’s IP portfolio, understanding this threshold is essential. A patent that fails on ‘manner of manufacture’ is invalid from the outset, regardless of how novel or commercially valuable the underlying technology might be thought to be.
|
Authors:
|
|