Grant v Commissioner of Patents

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Grant v Commissioner of Patents involved a dispute over the patentability of a business method proposed by Mr Grant. Mr Grant argued that his method, which involved a trust, a gift, a loan, and a mortgage, was a business system and therefore patentable. The Commissioner of Patents, however, contested that the proposed method did not constitute a patentable invention under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) because it lacked a tangible physical outcome. The central issue before the court was whether Mr Grant's business method could be considered a manner of manufacture, which is a requirement for patentability.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles established in previous cases, particularly NRDC v Commissioner of Patents, which outlined the criteria for determining whether an invention is a manner of manufacture. The court held that for an invention to be patentable, it must result in a useful, concrete, and tangible result, rather than merely being an abstract idea or a method of calculation. In this case, the court found that Mr Grant's method was essentially "intellectual information" and a scheme without a physical product or phenomenon, and thus it did not meet the requirement for patentability. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Mr Grant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.