Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents (No 3)

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents (No 3) involves a dispute concerning the validity of certain patent claims related to electronic gaming machines (EGMs) and methods for providing feature games. The matter was remitted back to the Federal Court of Australia following a split decision by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the patent claims constituted a "manner of manufacture" within the meaning of section 18(1A)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The dispute also encompassed the broader question of the approach to be taken with patent claims that involve the use of a computer in their implementation.

The Full Court of the Federal Court had previously affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents that the claims were not a manner of manufacture. However, the High Court split three-all, resulting in an affirmation of the Full Court's decision under section 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). This statutory provision applies when the Justices of the High Court are equally divided in their opinion, mandating that the decision of the lower court be affirmed. Consequently, the Full Court decision was upheld, and the matter was remitted for the consideration of residual issues, including the position of claims other than claim 1 of Innovation Patent No 2016101967, and the costs of the hearings before the primary judge.

The Federal Court is now required to address these residual issues in light of the Full Court's reasons, focusing on the specific claims and the costs associated with the hearings before the primary judge. The parties have been directed to confer and provide short minutes of order by a specified date, outlining any disagreements and setting a timetable for the submission of further arguments, particularly those concerning costs. The entry of orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.