Amplero, Inc.

The case of Amplero, Inc. involved a patent application which was subject to a decision by Isaac Tan, the Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents. The applicant, Amplero, Inc., sought to patent a method of creating and training a logical decision-making process, which involved the use of a tree or model. The primary issue for the court was whether the invention constituted a "manner of manufacture" as required by Australian patent law. The court was tasked with determining whether the invention met the criteria for patentability under the relevant sections of the Patents Act 1990.

The court considered the criteria for determining whether an invention constitutes a manner of manufacture, referencing previous cases such as Todd Martin [2017] APO 33 and Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2017] APO 38. The delegate noted that the points set out in Aristocrat were not intended to be exhaustive or definitive conditions but rather relevant matters to consider. The court found that the invention, which involved an iterative process of creating and training a tree or model, did not meet the requirement of being a manner of manufacture. The invention was seen as a logical process rather than a physical or tangible product or method. The court concluded that there was no patentable subject matter in the application that could be considered a manner of manufacture.

In conclusion, the court determined that the claimed invention did not qualify as a manner of manufacture under Australian patent law. The application was refused as there was no patentable subject matter that met the necessary criteria. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the invention's nature and the relevant legal precedents. The final order was that the patent application be refused, as the invention did not meet the statutory requirements for patentability.