On Telstra’s opposition to the grant of Amazon’s 1-click patent in Australia, the Commissioner’s delegate has found that:
- claims 1, 2 and 4 to 61 were invalid;
It seems to me that the use to which server generated client identifiers [i.e., cookies] are put in the present invention is both an elegant and inventive way of achieving one action ordering functionality. Therefore I consider that any of the claims having this integer fulfil the requirement of subparagraph 18(1)(b)(ii) of involving an inventive step. These are claims 3 and 62 to 141.
Patentology has a detailed consideration here.
DCC takes a slightly different tack.
Telstra Corporation Limited v Amazon.com, Inc.  APO 28
The specification in AU 762715 (pdf)
Following this week’s developments in the USA, Amazon’s “1-click” patent is also in the news in Europe.
The EPO’s Board of Appeal has confirmed a finding of invalidity, on grounds of obviousness, for the original claims, but has remitted the heavily amended version of the claims for reconsideration.
IP:Jur has the report.
Lid dip: PriorSmart
Patently-O reports that Amazon’s 1-click patent has survived re-examination in the USA before the USPTO.
It would appear that the application was amended to tie the claims to use of a shopping cart:
The approved-of amendment adds the seeming trivial limitation that the one-click system operates as part of a “shopping cart model.” …. Because most retail eCommerce sites still use the shopping cart model, the added limitation appears to have no practical impact on the patent scope.
One of the (more intelligible) comments claimed that re-examination before the USPTO did not extend to consideration of obviousness issues.
Amazon’s counterpart patent application in Australia, No 762175, is under opposition by Telstra.