The Full Federal Court has upheld the Commissioner’s refusal to grant Research Affiliates’ patent for a computer implemented method for constructing a portfolio management index.
The central claim reads:
A computer-implemented method for generating an index, the method including steps of:
(a) accessing data relating to a plurality of assets;
(b) processing the data thereby to identify a selection of the assets for inclusion in the index based on an objective measure of scale other than share price, market capitalization and any combination thereof;
(c) accessing a weighting function configured to weight the selected assets;
(d) applying the weighting function, thereby to assign to each of the selected assets a respective weighting, wherein the weighting:
(i) is based on an objective measure of scale other than share price, market capitalization and any combination thereof; and
(ii) is not based on market capitalization weighting, equal weighting, share price weighting and any combination thereof;
thereby to generate the index.
The Court posed the issue before it as being:
whether computer implementation of an otherwise unpatentable business scheme is sufficient to make the claimed method properly the subject of letters patent.
One might think, put that way, there is only one answer. May be. It makes it very important, however, how one determines whether the “scheme” is itself unpatentable.
Another intriguing aspect of the decision is that, before it embarked on analysing whether this was indeed a “manner of manufacture, the Court engaged in a very extensive review of how this issue is approached in other jurisdictions, including the USA and UK.
Time pressures don’t permit extended analysis at this stage. In the meantime:
and no doubt others. It will be interesting to see what happens to the RPL Central appeal.
Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents  FCAFC 150 (Kenny, Bennett and Nicholas JJ)