F45 Training Pty Ltd v Body Fit Training Company Pty Ltd (No 2)

F45 Training Pty Ltd, the applicant, commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Body Fit Training Company Pty Ltd, the respondent, asserting infringement of two innovation patents. The applicant sought declarations of infringement and damages, while the respondent denied the allegations and counterclaimed for revocation of the patents. The matter was heard by Bromberg J, who was tasked with determining the validity of the patents and whether they had been infringed.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the invention described and claimed in the patents was a manner of manufacture under Australian patent law, and if so, whether the respondent’s methods and systems infringed the claims of the patents. The applicant argued that the claims, which described a computer-implemented method and system for configuring exercise stations within fitness studios, involved physical configuration of the exercise stations and thus constituted a manner of manufacture. The respondent contended that the invention was a computer-implemented scheme or process, not a manner of manufacture. Additionally, the respondent argued that the claims were not valid as they did not represent a technological advance or involve any unusual technical effects.

The court considered the recent Full Court decisions in Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd and Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents, which held that certain computer-implemented schemes or processes were not manners of manufacture. The court found that the invention in the 604 patent was a computer-implemented system that facilitated the configuration of exercise stations using information stored in a studio information file. The court held that the substance of the invention was not a manner of manufacture, as it did not involve any physical transformation of materials or any unusual technical effect. Consequently, the claims were invalid. The court also held that even if the claims were construed to require physical configuration of the exercise stations, the invention would still not be a manner of manufacture. The court dismissed the applicant’s claims and revoked the patents, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs. The court further stayed the revocation orders pending any appeal by the applicant, subject to certain conditions being met by the respondent.