Legal Research
Cases
BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527)

BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527)

Case [2022] APO 78 30 November 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527) [2022] APO 78
Patent Application: 2019219863

Title:SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING TRAVEL PAYMENTS

Patent Applicant: BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527)

Delegate:Pradnya Satarkar

Decision Date: 30 November 2022

Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 4 April 2022

Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objection- manner of manufacture- automation of travel booking and payments- in substance directed to a mere scheme- alleged invention not a manner of manufacture- application refused

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Griffith Hack

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2019219863

Title:SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING TRAVEL PAYMENTS

Patent Applicant: BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527)
Date of Decision: 30 November 2022
DECISION
The claims of the application, as proposed to be amended, do not define a manner of manufacture.

I do not see any subject matter in the body of the specification from which valid claims could be drafted to overcome this finding.

I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background

The Application (2019219863) was filed on 23 August 2019 in the name of Troovo Pty Ltd. The Application claims divisional status from Australian patent application no. 2017333594 (“Parent Application”), filed on 27 September 2017, which is the Australian National Phase Application of PCT application no. PCT/AU2017/051056, claiming priority from Australian provisional application no. 2016903907, filed 27 September 2016.
The Parent Application had four adverse reports issued on it, with the only objection being to the claims not defining a manner of manufacture in each of them. The Parent Application lapsed due to failure to gain acceptance.
The first examination report on the Application was issued on 22 September 2020 with the only objection to the claims not being for a manner of manufacture. A response to the examiner’s report was filed on 17 September 2021 and a hearing was requested on 22 September 2021. A second examination report was issued on 27 October 2021, with the only objection to the claims not being for a manner of manufacture.
Assignment of the Application to BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527) (“the Applicant”) was recorded on 15 December 2021.
The examination of the present application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (“the Act”) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (“the Raising the Bar Act”) as the application was filed after 15 April 2013. Thus, the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities (subsection 49(1)). I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application.
Pursuant to regulation 13.4(1)(g) when the Commissioner gives an applicant an opportunity to be heard in relation to an examiner’s objection and issues a written decision, the period for gaining acceptance of the application may be extended until three months from the date the decision is issued, or, pursuant to regulation 13.4(3), for a period of longer than three months…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527)

Details

AGLC: BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527) [2022] APO 78
Case: [2022] APO 78
Decision Date: 30 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of BaVelPay S.L.U (B-67506527) before the court involved a dispute over the patentability of a claimed invention concerning the automation of travel booking and payments. The examiner had objected to the application on the grounds that it was not a manner of manufacture and was in substance directed to a mere scheme or method. The applicant, BaVelPay S.L.U, argued that the invention was indeed a manner of manufacture and should be granted a patent. The court was tasked with determining whether the claimed invention met the legal requirements for patentability, specifically whether it was a manner of manufacture and not merely a scheme or method.

The court had to decide whether the invention was a manner of manufacture, as required by the Patents Act. This involved assessing whether the invention involved a physical process or system that could be manufactured or used in industry. The court also had to consider whether the invention was in substance directed to a mere scheme, meaning whether it was merely an abstract idea or method without any practical application. The court needed to evaluate the specific features of the claimed invention and determine if they constituted a tangible process or system that could be manufactured or used in industry.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the specific features of the claimed invention and found that it did not meet the legal requirements for patentability. The court held that the invention was not a manner of manufacture, as it was in substance directed to a mere scheme or method. The court found that the invention lacked a tangible process or system that could be manufactured or used in industry. As a result, the court upheld the examiner's objection and refused the patent application. The court found that the invention did not meet the legal requirements for patentability under the Patents Act.

The court's final order was that the patent application be refused. The court upheld the examiner's objection and found that the invention was not a manner of manufacture and was in substance directed to a mere scheme or method. The applicant was not granted a patent for the claimed invention. The decision highlights the importance of meeting the legal requirements for patentability, including the need for a tangible process or system that can be manufactured or used in industry.

Orders