Accenture Global Services Limited

Accenture Global Services Limited filed a patent application for a system managing user orders for food and beverage over the internet, real-time delivery of ordered items, and providing order suggestions. The application faced objections on the basis that it did not describe a manner of manufacture as required by sections 45 and 49 of the Patents Act 1990. The objection was raised consistently over three examination reports, culminating in the refusal of the patent application. Accenture requested a hearing, which was conducted through written submissions, to contest the examiner's objections.

The legal issues before the court were whether the claimed invention described a manner of manufacture, and whether there was patentable subject matter in the specification. The court had to determine if the application met the statutory requirements for patentability under the amended Patents Act 1990 and Regulations 1991, specifically in light of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. The court examined the details provided in the application to ascertain whether the claimed invention qualified as a manner of manufacture and whether it was eligible for patent protection.

The court found that the claimed invention did not describe a manner of manufacture as it did not involve a physical transformation of materials or objects. Instead, the invention focused on the management of orders and the use of intelligent queueing information. The court concluded that the application did not provide sufficient details to demonstrate a tangible process or method that could be considered a manner of manufacture. Additionally, the court noted that the invention was more akin to a business method, which is generally not considered patentable subject matter under Australian law. As a result, the court refused the patent application, finding that providing an opportunity to overcome the objections would serve no useful purpose.

The final orders of the court were that the patent application be refused. The Commissioner was directed to record the decision accordingly and to notify the applicant of the outcome. The decision was made on the basis that the claimed invention did not meet the statutory requirements for patentability under the Patents Act 1990.