Australia

Prof. Brennan on copyright in Australia

Leave a Comment / Copyright / By / 5 September 2022 / , , , ,

Late last year, Prof. David Brennan published Copyright Law, Federation Press.

Those of you who have heard David speak or read any of his wide ranging publications will no doubt appreciate that this is a book worth adding to your arsenal library.

If you are not one of that fortunate number, perhaps you will be further encouraged by the words of one Hon William Gummow AC:

Since its enactment more than 50 years ago, the 1968 Act has moved significantly from the classic structure of copyright laws. This is the product of judicial decisions and much legislative activity. The busy practitioner often will be presented on short notice with copyright disputes and needs an authoritative text to be ready at hand. In those law schools where the subject is taught to undergraduates the students need access to a stimulating study of the statute and case law.

This book answers their needs. The author has an engaging literary style which leads the readers through the conceptual thickets of copyright law. The publisher also is to be congratulated for the preparation which has gone into the production of the book and its printing in Australia.

from His Honour’s review Copyright Law by David Brennan —  (2022) 51 Aust Bar Rev 391 (paywall).

One slight quibble, it might be thought a slight disservice to the efforts of the late Prof. Lahore to mark his 1977 monograph as the last comprehensive text specifically serving the Australian market given his much expanded Copyright Law looseleaf service published in 1988 and, of course, the continuing mammoth Copyright and Designs, first published in 1996. (Of course, I would say that!). Nonetheless, that quibble aside, if you are following copyright law in Australia, you should be finding this book.

Front views of two prior art microphones, the registered design and the XTrak

A case of design

Leave a Comment / Designs / By / 19 June 2022 / , , , , , , , , , , ,

A case of design

Burley J has ruled that Uniden’s XTrak mobile radio product would infringe GME’s registered design.

Uniden had begun displaying in Australia images of its Xtrak product on its website and in its online shop, but was not yet selling the product. After an exchange of correspondence in which Uniden refused to disclose its proposed launch date, GME sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain infringement of its registered design. Instead, Burley J listed the matter for early final hearing:

How good is that?

Helpfully, Burley J’s decision includes images of the prior art as well as the registered design and the Xtrak. Front views of the two closest prior art as well as the registered design and the Xtrak are set out below:

GME Uniden and the prior art

The legal issue

By s 71, a person infringes a registered design if they make, import, sell, offer to sell etc. a product embodying a design substantially similar in overall impression to the registered design.

Whether a product is substantially similar in overall impression to a registered design is tested by the matters set out in s 19.

Those matters require the Court to give more weight to the similarities than the differnces having regard to the state of development of the prior art, whether or not there is a statement of newness and distinctiveness[1] and the freedom of the designer to innovate. As GME’s design was registered before the ACIP Response Act, these matters fell to be considered from the perspective of the “standard of the informed user”.

The s 19 factors are also used to determine the validity of a registered design.

Burley J noted that the ALRC had explained how the substantial similarity test was supposed to work at paragraph 6.7:

…. The word ‘substantially’ is preferred to ‘significantly’ because ‘substantially’ has already been interpreted in a copyright context to be a qualitative and not quantitative term. The qualitative test is useful to determine designs infringement without importing a copying criterion. A qualitative test will assist the courts in evaluating the importance of the similarities and differences between competing designs. ….

and:

The phrase ‘overall impression’ is preferred because it encourages the court to focus on the whole appearance of competing designs instead of counting the differences between them.

(The emphasis is Burley J’s.)

Burley J pointed out, therefore, the prior art is relevant not just to the validity of the design but also infringement as it helps determine the proper scope of the design.

Accordingly, where the state of the art was highly developed, distinctiveness may lie in only small advances. If so, however, a correspondingly close degree of resemblance would be required between the accused product and the registered design.

Comparing the designs

Burley J considered the overall shape of the registered design and the Xtrak was very similar, both being vertically symmetrical curve-shaped trapezoids tapering to the base. The screen arrangement and screen surrounds were very similar. As was the curved PTT (or press to transmit button) and the clear spatial separation below the upper buttons and the lower buttons.

Front views of the registered design and the Xtrac labelled to identify corresponding features
Registered design v Xtrac

His Honour noted a number of differences. The registered design had a slight “step in” feature (which contributed to the spatial separation between the upper and lower buttons on the front face); the lower buttons in the registered design were arranged a central trapezoidal button where the Xtrak had a central column of speakers; thirdly, the Xtrak had a row of dummy buttons centred on the top speaker element while the registered design displayed a curving speaker panel. Other differences, such as the visibility of the microphone and the top buttons, were relatively trivial and given less weight.

Burley J accepted that there were functional and ergonomic considerations affecting the design of such products. For example, the “basic architecture” of such products would include a PTT button, buttons, a speaker, a microphone, a boss and a downward-facing grommet. Others included a shape that could be held in one hand, the positioning of the PTT button on the left-hand side.

However, the evidence of the prior art showed there was considerable scope for variation in these features so a designer had considerable freedom to innovate.

Overall, Burley J held at [84] the Xtrack was closer to the registered design than the registered design was to the prior art and so infringed:

I take into account the state of development of the prior art in making my assessment, in accordance with s 19(2)(a) of the Act. In my view the informed user would regard the XTRAK to be more similar in overall impression to the GME design than any of the other prior art devices. The prior art base demonstrates that the overall shape of each of the devices considered in section 3.3 above varies considerably, from broadly rectangular, to trapezoidal, to the waisted rectangle of the Crystal. The two most similar to the GME design, in terms of shape, in the prior art are the TX4500S and the Standard Horizon, yet they have more obviously different appearances in terms of their front face arrangements.

2 other matters

First, the statement of newness and distinctiveness was so general, not identifying any particular features, it played no role in the assessment.

Secondly, as noted, the comparison fell to be made under the “standard of the informed user” test applicable before the amendments made by the ACIP Response Act.

Burley J applied the “familiar person” test developed by Yates J and also applied by Nicholas J, not the “informed user” approach. It does seem both practical and sensible for the Courts to apply the “familiar person” test to pre-ACIP Response Act cases now, given the divergent responses and the legislative adoption of the “familiar person” test going forward.

Final judgment matters

In his Honour’s final orders disposing of the proceeding, Burley J refused to make an order for delivery up and takedown against Uniden. The orders included an injunction, the infringing products had never been sold in Australia and there was no reason to believe Uniden would not comply with the injunction:

… the broad principle underlying the making of such order is that where an injunction has been made and, that notwithstanding, there is a basis for considering that there may be a temptation to act in breach of the injunction because of materials possessed by a party, then it may be appropriate to order delivery up and takedown: see Goodman Fielder Pte Ltd v Conga Foods Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 307. That circumstance does not arise in the present case. An injunction will be made against Uniden, a large corporation. There is no reason to believe that it would not behave in accordance with the injunction, as counsel for the applicant accepts. In those circumstances, and having regard to the correspondence which indicates that the XTRAK product has never been sold in Australia, it is appropriate to decline to make an order for delivery up and takedown.

Burley J also adopted a process designed to expedite resolution of the order that Uniden pay GME’s costs of the proceeding.

At the parties’ request, Burley J allowed them 14 days to negotiate the quantum of costs payable by Uniden to GME. If they were unable to agree, Burley J ordered that GME should file and serve within a further 14 days a Costs Summary in accordance with the Costs Practice Note (GPN-Costs). Uniden would then have a further 14 days to file and serve a costs response. If the parties were still unable to agree within 14 days of that service, then a Registrar was directed to determine the quantum including, if thought appropriate, on the papers.

A check on Federal Law Search shows the proceeding as “closed”.

GME Pty Ltd v Uniden Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 520

  1. There was a statement of newness and distinctiveness here: “Newness and distinctiveness is claimed in the features of shape and/or configuration of a microphone as illustrated in the accompanying representations.”  ?

An AI is not an inventor after all (or yet)

Leave a Comment / Patents / By / 13 April 2022 / , , , , ,

A strong Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia has ruled that DABUS, an artificial intelligence, is not an inventor for the purposes of patent law. So, Dr Thaler’s application for DABUS’ patent has been rejected.[1] No doubt the robot will be back again[2] and we can expect that an application for special leave will be pending soon.

A dalek on display
By Moritz B. – Self-photographed, CC BY 2.5,

Dr Thaler had applied for a patent, No. 2019363177 entitled “Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention”, naming DABUS – an acronym for ‘device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience’ – as the inventor.

The Commissioner had rejected the application under reg. 3.2C for failure to identify the inventor. That rejection was overturned by Beach J on appeal from the Commissioner. And this was the decision on the Commissioner’s appeal.

Essentially, the Full Court ruled that an inventor for the purposes of patent law must be a natural person, not an artificial intelligence.

The Full Court held that identification of the “inventor” was central to the scheme of the Act. This is because, under s 15, only the inventor or someone claiming through the inventor is entitled to a patent.

Under the legislation before the 1990 Act, their Honours considered that an ‘actual inventor’ could be only a person with legal personality. At [98], their Honours summarised:

In each of these provisions, the ability of a person to make an application for a patent was predicated upon the existence of an “actual inventor” from whom the entitlement to the patent was directly or indirectly derived. Paragraphs (a), (c) and (e) describe the actual inventor as, respectively, a person, one that is deceased and has a legal representative (which must be a person), and one that is not resident in Australia. Paragraphs (b), (d), (f) and (fa) all contemplate an assignment happening between the patent applicant and the actual inventor. It is clear from these provisions that only a person with a legal personality could be the “actual inventor” under this legislative scheme.

This scheme, and its consequences, did not materially change under the 1990 Act.

Acknowledging that a none of the case law had to consider whether an AI could be an inventor, the Full Court noted that the ‘entitlement’ cases proceeded on the basis that ‘inventor’ meant the ‘actual inventor’. Their Honours considered the cases interpreting this expression were all premised on the ‘actual inventor’ – the person whose mind devised the claimed invention – being a natural person. At [105] and [106], their Honours explained:

None of the cases cited in the preceding five paragraphs confronted the question that arose before the primary judge of whether or not the “inventor” could include an artificial intelligence machine. We do not take the references in those cases to “person” to mean, definitively, that an inventor under the Patents Act and Regulations must be a human. However, it is plain from these cases that the law relating to the entitlement of a person to the grant of a patent is premised upon an invention for the purposes of the Patents Act arising from the mind of a natural person or persons. Those who contribute to, or supply, the inventive concept are entitled to the grant. The grant of a patent for an invention rewards their ingenuity.

Where s 15(1)(a) provides that a patent for an invention may only be granted to “a person who is an inventor”, the reference to “a person” emphasises, in context, that this is a natural person. …. (emphasis supplied)

Given that conclusion, and the structure of s 15, Dr Thaler’s argument that he was entitled on the basis of ownership of the output of DABUS’ efforts was to no avail. At [113]:

… having regard to the view that we have taken to the construction of s 15(1) and reg 3.2C(2)(aa) [i]t is not to the point that Dr Thaler may have rights to the output of DABUS. Only a natural person can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act and Regulations. Such an inventor must be identified for any person to be entitled to a grant of a patent under ss 15(1)(b)-(d). (emphasis supplied)

The Full Court then drew support from the High Court’s reasoning in D’Arcy v Myriad esp. at [6] in which the majority emphasised that patentable subject matter had to be the product of “human action”.

Although not put in this way, it is apparent that policy considerations played a significant role in their Honours’ conclusion. At [119] to [120], their Honours pointed out:

in filing the application, Dr Thaler no doubt intended to provoke debate as to the role that artificial intelligence may take within the scheme of the Patents Act and Regulations. Such debate is important and worthwhile. However, in the present case it clouded consideration of the prosaic question before the primary judge, which concerned the proper construction of s 15 and reg 3.2C(2)(aa). In our view, there are many propositions that arise for consideration in the context of artificial intelligence and inventions. They include whether, as a matter of policy, a person who is an inventor should be redefined to include an artificial intelligence. If so, to whom should a patent be granted in respect of its output? The options include one or more of: the owner of the machine upon which the artificial intelligence software runs, the developer of the artificial intelligence software, the owner of the copyright in its source code, the person who inputs the data used by the artificial intelligence to develop its output, and no doubt others. If an artificial intelligence is capable of being recognised as an inventor, should the standard of inventive step be recalibrated such that it is no longer judged by reference to the knowledge and thought processes of the hypothetical uninventive skilled worker in the field? If so, how? What continuing role might the ground of revocation for false suggestion or misrepresentation have, in circumstances where the inventor is a machine?

Those questions and many more require consideration. Having regard to the agreed facts in the present case, it would appear that this should be attended to with some urgency. However, the Court must be cautious about approaching the task of statutory construction by reference to what it might regard as desirable policy, imputing that policy to the legislation, and then characterising that as the purpose of the legislation …. (emphasis supplied)

Finally, in this quick reaction, it can be noted that the Full Court recognised that their Honours’ decision was consistent with the English Court of Appeal’s decision on the counterpart application. Their Honours considered, however, there were sufficient differences in the legislative schemes that a wholly autocthonous solution should be essayed.

Commissioner of Patents v Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62 (Allsop CJ, Nicholas, Yates, Moshinsky And Burley JJ)

  1. Patent application No. 2019363177 entitled “Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention”  ?
  2. With apologies to you know who.  ?

Aristocrat gets special leave

Leave a Comment / Patents / By / 24 June 2022 / , , , , , , , , , ,

The High Court has granted Aristocrat special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s ruling that Aristocrat’s application for an electronic gaming machine (EGM or “pokie”) was not patentable subject matter.[1]

The patent application

Aristocrat’s application is entitled ‘A system and method for providing a feature game’ – App. No. 2016101967; yet another problematic “innovation” patent.

The Commissioner and Aristocrat were in agreement that the case rose or fell on the patentability of claim 1:

(1) A gaming machine comprising:

(1.1) a display;

(1.2) a credit input mechanism operable to establish credits on the gaming machine, the credit input mechanism including at least one of a coin input chute, a bill collector, a card reader and a ticket reader;

(1.3) meters configured for monitoring credits established via the credit input mechanism and changes to the established credits due to play of the gaming machine, the meters including a credit meter to which credit input via the credit input mechanism is added and a win meter;

(1.4) a random number generator;

(1.5) a game play mechanism including a plurality of buttons configured for operation by a player to input a wager from the established credits and to initiate a play of a game; and

(1.6) a game controller comprising a processor and memory storing (i) game program code, and (ii) symbol data defining reels, and wherein the game controller is operable to assign prize values to configurable symbols as required during play of the game,

(1.7) the game controller executing the game program code stored in the memory and responsive to initiation of the play of the game with the game play mechanism to:

(1.8) select a plurality of symbols from a first set of reels defined by the symbol data using the random number generator;

(1.9) control the display to display the selected symbols in a plurality of columns of display positions during play of a base game;

(1.10) monitor play of the base game and trigger a feature game comprising free games in response to a trigger event occurring in play of the base game,

(1.11) conduct the free games on the display by, for each free game, (a) retaining configurable symbols on the display, (b) replacing non-configurable symbols by selecting, using the random number generator, symbols from a second set of reels defined by the symbol data for symbol positions not occupied by configurable symbols, and (c) controlling the display to display the symbols selected from the second set of reels, each of the second reels comprising a plurality of non-configurable symbols and a plurality of configurable symbols, and

(1.12) when the free games end, make an award of credits to the win meter or the credit meter based on a total of prize values assigned to collected configurable symbols.

(emphasis supplied by Middleton and Perram JJ).

The new or innovative feature lay in the feature comprising the free game integer – integers 1.10 to 1.12. It was apparently common ground that the other features were part of the common general knowledge for electronic gaming machines.

In the Full Court, Middleton and Perram JJ at [3] and [4] explained:

3 It is not suggested that there is anything inventive about Claim 1’s EGM except for its feature game and it is in all other respects an unremarkable EGM. (Because the 967 Patent is an innovation patent strictly the question is whether there is anything innovative about it, but nothing turns on the distinction between inventive and innovative for present purposes). A feature game is a secondary game awarded to a player on the occurrence of a defined event in the ordinary or ‘base’ game of spinning reels, termed a ‘trigger event’. Once the feature game is enlivened by the trigger event the feature game appears and the player is able to play it and potentially to win further prizes. When the feature game is completed the EGM reverts to the base game.

4 The point of feature games is to encourage players to keep wagering on the EGM by making it more interesting to do so. Since the revenue generated by an EGM is a function of the amount wagered upon it – in New South Wales up to 15% in the long run – the more successful a feature game is in keeping the player wagering, the more lucrative the EGM is for its operator. A successful feature game is therefore commercially valuable both from the perspective of the class of persons who operate EGMs and from the perspective of those who manufacture and distribute them to that class. The Respondent (‘Aristocrat’) is part of a world-wide group of companies engaged in the manufacture and distribution of EGMs and is the particular member of the group which owns the 967 Patent.

Their Honours then explained how the free game feature worked at [11] – [12]:

11 The game defined by integers 1.10–1.12 is in fact not a single game at all but rather a family of games with particular common attributes. On the occurrence of a trigger event (integer 1.10) the player is awarded one or more free games of the feature game (integer 1.11). The feature game (integer 1.11) consists of a second set of reels. Amongst the symbols on these reels are ‘configurable’ symbols. The patent does not define a configurable symbol but it does provide for them to be assigned prize values by the computer on which the game is played, which is known as the game controller (integer 1.6). A preferred embodiment of the invention suggests that the configurable symbol may be overlaid with the amount of the prize which has been assigned to it (although this is not a necessary feature of integer 1.11 and any symbol will do). In that preferred embodiment, the configurable symbol is an image of a pearl and it is configured by the overlaying on that image of different prize amounts, e.g., some pearls appear with ‘250’ and others with ‘1000’, where those figures represent credits.

12 Returning to the feature game, each time a configurable symbol appears in the display grid at the end of the free game that particular symbol position on the relevant reel stops spinning for any remaining free games and the configurable symbol remains locked in place in any subsequent play of the feature game (i.e. if the player still has any free games left). When the player eventually runs out of free games in the feature game a prize is awarded related to the number of configurable symbols which have been locked in place (integer 1.12). In the preferred embodiment the prize is the sum of the assigned values on the pearls which have been frozen on the display grid but integer 1.12 is consistent with the prize being calculated in some other way.

Burley J

At first instance (on appeal from the Commissioner), Burley J considered that the case law required a two stage assessment of patentable subject matter:

  1. The initial inquiry was whether or not the claim was for a mere scheme or business method of the type that was not the proper subject matter for a grant of a patent.
  2. If so, a second inquiry arose: whether or not the claim involved the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer was integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which it was performed. That is, was there invention in the computerisation of the claimed method?

Each step was to be undertaken as a matter of substance rather than mere form.

Applying that methodology, Burley J avoided the whole mere scheme or business method controversy by holding that the claim was for a mechanism of a particular construction where the integers interacted to produce a particular product – an EGM.

While this blogger welcomed the result, it did raise a rather awkward question: why did putting the integers in a box create patentable subject matter when essentially the same functionality could also be supplied over a network including, dare one say it, the Internet.

The Commissioner appealed.

The Full Court

All three judges (Middleton, Perram and Nicholas JJ) unanimously allowed the appeal. Middleton and Perram JJ delivered the main opinion and Nicholas J delivered a separate concurring opinion.

All three judges accepted unreservedly that a mere scheme or abstract idea was not patentable subject matter.

All three judges also accepted that whether something is patentable subject matter was to be determined as a matter of substance rather than mere form.

Middleton and Perram JJ

At [14] – [15], Middleton and Perram JJ considered that the feature game itself defined by integers 1.10 to 1.12 was a mere abstract idea for purposes of patent law. This was because either it was the definition of a family of games with common attributes and so akin to the rules of a game. Or it was because it was a method of increasing player interest in the EGM and so increasing the operator’s gaming revenue. On that view, it was just a business scheme or scheme.

At [16], their Honours accepted that an invention which physically embodied an abstract idea and gave it some practical application could be patentable subject matter. Thus, a mechanical poker machine which allowed a game (the abstract idea) to be played could be patentable. In such a case, however, the patent would protect the physical embodiment and not the abstract idea:

But the patent protects the invention which is the poker machine and not the abstract idea consisting of the game which it plays. This is consistent with decisions on board or card games to the effect that the game itself, no matter its ingenuity, does not comprise patentable subject matter but the physical apparatus used for playing the game (such as cards or the board) may do so ….

Crucially, their Honours then held that the implementation of the game by means of an unspecified computer program could not be a manner of manufacture unless the implementation resulted in some development of computer technology rather than its utilisation. At [18], their Honours said:

The implementation of an abstraction such as that disclosed by integers 1.10–1.12 by means of an unspecified computer program to be executed on the computer which is the game controller will not give rise to a patentable invention unless the implementation itself can be seen as pertaining to the development of computer technology rather than to its utilisation …. [2]

Middleton and Perram JJ next accepted that Burley J’s approach could be workable where the subject matter of the claimed patent was obviously implemented in a computer. In other cases, however, it had the potential to lead to a wrong result especially where “for example, whether a claimed physical apparatus such as an EGM is, in truth, no more than a particular kind of computer.”

Instead, Middleton and Perram JJ proposed at [26] a different two-step analysis:

(a) Is the invention claimed a computer-implemented invention?

(b) If so, can the invention claimed broadly be described as an advance in computer technology?

In the present case, the claimed invention was a computer-implemented invention.

First, although the apparatus claimed was an EGM (or poker machine), it was in substance a computer. At [32] – [34], their Honours found that the EGM was a game control computer (integer 1.6) attached to a random number generator (integer 1.4, another computer) with some input and output devices (respectively, integers 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 (input) and 1.1 (output)) with associated software instructions (integers 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 and the feature game 1.10 – 1.12).

Secondly, to avoid the (erroneous) conclusion that the claimed invention was for the practical implementation of an abstract idea in a device, at [50] their Honours considered it was necessary to distinguish between a claim for an invention which was a computer and a claim for an invention implemented in a computer.

As a claim for either type of invention could appear to be a claim for a computer, it was necessary to identify what was in fact the substance of the claimed invention.

Here, the correct characterisation of the claim had to take into account the two elements of the claim: one element being the EGM (in effect, the computer) and the other element being the feature game and, importantly, the feature game was the only innovative feature of the claim.

As the feature game was to be executed in the computer, at [56] Middleton and Perram JJ considered the relationship of the feature game elements to the computer elements was one of implementation. Accordingly, the claim was to a computer-implemented invention.

Turning to the second question (b), Middleton and Perram JJ held that the claimed invention was not directed to an advance in computer technology. At [63], their Honours said:

Because the invention is the implementation of a feature game on the computer which is an EGM, the next question is whether what is put forward as inventive (or innovative) about Claim 1 pertains to the development of computer technology or merely its use. The fact that integers 1.10–1.12 leave it entirely up to the person designing the EGM to do the programming which gives effect to the family of games which those integers define inevitably necessitates the conclusion that Claim 1 pertains only to the use of a computer. Indeed, it purports to do nothing else. Claim 1 is silent on the topic of computer technology beyond that the person implementing the invention should use some.

It did not matter that the claim improved player engagement or improved subjective satisfaction. That had nothing to do with developing or advancing computer technology. Similarly, the use of configurable symbols for prizes was of no assistance. That might advance gaming technology but was not an advance in computer technology.

Nicholas J

Nicholas J reached the same conclusion but by a somewhat different route.

Like Middleton and Perram JJ, his Honour started from the proposition that mere schemes and abstract ideas are not patentable. At [115] Nicholas J considered that to be patentable the case law required a claimed invention to relate to some technological innovation:[3]

The Full Court noted at [100] the distinction drawn in Research Affiliates at [94] between a technological innovation which is patentable and a business innovation which is not. The use of the expression “technological innovation” emphasises the need to identify a technological contribution in a field of technology. The desirability of providing patent protection to technological innovations is reflected in Art 27(1) of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights which relevantly provides that “… patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application …”. The language of “technological innovation” has now been adopted in s 2A of the Act which refers to the promotion of economic wellbeing through technological innovation as an object of the Act.

An interesting invocation of the new Objects clause in the Act.

At [116], Nicholas J considered it was important to avoid an excessively rigid or formulaic approach to this issue. This was because the technological advance may lie in the field of computer technology. However, the required technological advance could also lie in a field of technology outside the computer:

… it is not appropriate to adopt an excessively rigid or formulaic approach to the question whether a computer implemented scheme is a manner of manufacture. This is especially true in situations where there may be no clear distinction between the field to which the invention belongs, and the field of computer technology. There may well be a technological innovation in the field of technology to which the invention belongs even though it cannot be said that there has been some technological innovation in the field of computers. The field of the invention may encompass different fields of technology that have their own technical problems that lie “outside the computer”. Moreover, the solutions to these problems may necessarily rely upon generic computing technology for their implementation. That does not necessarily render such solutions unpatentable.

His Honour gave as an example at [120] a computer-implemented invention for running a refrigerator in a more energy-efficient way. This might not involve an advance in computer technology but could well be patentable where the invention lay in the field of refrigeration technology. So, there could also be patentable subject matter in the way a gaming system or machine functioned even if there had not been an advance in computer technology.

Turning to Aristocrat’s patent application, Nicholas J considered at [135] that Burley J’s two-step test did not adequately address the Commissioner’s submission that the claim was for nothing more than the (unpatentable) rules of a game implemented in generic computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions.

Citing RPL at [96], the fact that the feature game instructions were embodied in a computer was not sufficient to qualify as patentable subject matter. While the purpose of the invention was to provide a different and more enjoyable playing experience, the claim was not directed to overcoming any technological problem. At [141], his Honour explained:

The specification does not identify any technological problem to which the patent purports to provide a solution. Nor did the expert evidence (insofar as it was made available to us) suggest that the invention described and claimed in the specification was directed to any technical problem in the field of gaming machines or gaming systems. Rather, as the specification makes clear, the purpose of the invention is to create a new game that includes a feature game giving players the opportunity to win prizes that could not be won in the base game. Ultimately, the purpose of the invention is to provide players with a different and more enjoyable playing experience. The invention is not directed to a technological problem residing either inside or outside the computer.

Generic computer technology / software

While acknowledging that the phraseology had been used in earlier Full Court decisions, Middleton and Perram JJ considered at [35] to [42] that testing whether the claimed invention merely involved a generic computer or generic software was not “especially helpful”. It was preferable to focus on whether the claimed invention related to an advance in computer technology.

In contrast, Nicholas J (who had participated in the earlier cases) was not so troubled. At [112], his Honour considered it could be a useful signpost to patentability (or not) to ascertain whether the computer or software was just conventional computer technology being used for its well-known and well-understood effects.

Where to now

The law relating to “manner of manufacture” is a mess.

Following NRDC and before about the mid–2000s, the issue hardly, if ever, came up. Since the mid–2000s, there have been numerous cases; it is perhaps no exaggeration to say there are more, indeed way more, cases each year than in the previous 50 years.

And, unless one is prepared to say that it’s a computer-related invention and so it is not patentable subject matter (which the Courts repeatedly do not say), it is very hard to say what will pass the threshold and what will not.

One issue is that the cases are replete with comments like there is nothing new or inventive about that. That suggests that what is really the issue is lack of novelty or inventive step.

That though gives rise to a whole set of sub-issues. First, the whole situation is exacerbated by the abominations called “innovation patents”, which don’t actually require any invention, just that what is claimed (in effect) be new.

Secondly, proving lack of inventive step is a complicated, expensive and risky gamble – especially under our law before the Raising the Bar amendments.

Thirdly, while cases like CCOM, IBM and Welcome-Catuity could provide a principled approach to this issue, that could well end up with Australian law granting patents in circumstances where the USA and the EU would not. Not a situation the Productivity Commission would favour. And, it is far from clear that any clear or consistent approach has emerged in either jurisdiction, especially the USA.

The reason, or at least one of the reasons, why NRDC was a “watershed” in patent law was that it got rid of the artificial pigeon-holes or categories of “vendible product” which, as the NRDC judgment so tellingly demonstrated, had resulted in such inconsistent and unpredictable results to the test of manner of manufacture. Instead, it adopted an open-ended, flexible approach directed to achieving the objects of patent law.

Against that background, one might argue that Nicholas J’s approach, with respect, allows a degree of flexibility and forward-thinking which may not follow from the approach taken by Middleton and Perram JJ. Whether his Honour’s approach provides any more certainty may be debated but at least it would avoid a narrow categorisation. Whether that is an approach that finds favour with the High Court, or what direction it might take, remains to be seen.

[Some typos were corrected on 24 June 2022]

  1. That is, not a ‘manner of manufacture’ for the purposes of Patents Act 1990 s 18(1)(a) and 18(1A)(a). Exceptionally, special leave was granted on the papers.  ?
  2. Citing Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177; 238 FCR 27 at [96] and [102] (Kenny, Bennett and Nicholas JJ).  ?
  3. Nicholas J considered that Research Affiliates at [115] – [119] (and RPL Central applying it) broadly equated the requirement for a technical contribution or technological innovation to the “artificially created state of affairs” required under the NRDC test.  ?

Designs ACIP amendments in force

Leave a Comment / Designs / By / 16 March 2022 / , , , , , , ,

IP Australia advises that the final provisions of the Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Act 2021 came into force last Thursday, 10 March 2022.[1]

Included amongst the important reforms which came into force are:

  • the 12 month grace period (Sch. 1);
  • the new exemption from infringement for prior use (Sch. 2)
  • the removal of the “publication” option and automatic request for registration 6 months after filing (if not requested earlier): (Sch. 3)
  • protection from pecuniary remedies for infringement before publication of the design (Sch. 4)
  • exclusive licensees can sue for infringement (Sch. 5).

Most of these amendments apply to applications for registration made after the amendments commenced.

The “grace period” excludes from the prior art base for novelty and distinctiveness publications and uses by a “relevant entity” in the 12 months before the priority date of the application.

For this purpose, a “relevant entity” means the owner of the design, a predecessor in title and the designer (the person who created the design).

Publication of an application to register the design by a Designs Office is not excluded from the prior art base, however, on the basis that the main point of the grace period is to protect against inadvertent disclosures and not deliberate attempts to obtain registration.

The grace period is available only to applications made on or after commencement. However, there is a further wrinkle: the “grace period” applies (or appears to apply) only in respect of public acts or publications which occur on or after commencement too.

New s 17(1A) provides:[2]

Subsection (1) applies in relation to a publication or use that occurs on or after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Act 2021 (whether the 12?month period referred to in that subsection begins before, on or after that commencement).

Things might have been clearer if the words in parentheses had not been included in this exercise in plain English. But they are there. The wording at [19] in the Explanatory Memorandum is clearer:

New subsection 17(1A) provides that the new grace period provided for in new subsection 17(1) only applies to a publication or use that occurs on or after commencement of this Schedule. This is the case regardless of whether the relevant 12-month period would begin before, on or after commencement of the Schedule. This is intended to provide clarity for users of the design system that any publication or use prior to commencement will not be eligible for the new grace period.

That is, it appears the grace period will not be a full 12 months until 10 March 2023.

Another wrinkle relates to third party prior art. If the design owner (or other “relevant entity”) published the design before the publication of the third party’s prior art, the third party is presumed to have derived the design from the design owner and so it does not count as prior art. It is a presumption only. So, if the third party can prove it derived the design independently of the design owner (or other “relevant entity”) the third party’s design goes back into the prior art. See new s 17(1C).

The idea here is that how the third party derived its design is something essentially within the third party’s knowledge and so the third party has the onus of proving independent derivation.

The “prior user” exemption from infringement (new s 71A) works (if that is the right word) in much the same way as s 119 of the Patents Act. This requires the claimant to have taken “definite steps (whether contractually or otherwise)” to make, import, sell, offer to sell etc. a product which is identical to or substantially similar in overall impression to the registered design. It is an “exemption” rather than a “defence” as, amongst other things, it is transferrable.

In what should be a welcome development, IP Australia will be conducting a number of webinars to “walk through” the changes. You can register here.

  1. According to s 2 of the Act, Schedules 1 to 6 and 7 part 3 were to commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation or, if not proclaimed earlier, on the day after 6 months from the date of Royal Assent – 10 September 2021.  ↩
  2. A consolidated version of the Act as amended hasn’t been published yet and hasn’t made its way on to Austlii or Jade (at least at the time or writing).  ↩

It’s Christmas – so it must be time for copyright reforms

Leave a Comment / Copyright / By / 22 December 2021 / , , , , , , ,

At long last and just in time for Christmas, the Communication Branch of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications has published the long awaited exposure draft Copyright Amendment (Access Reform) Bill 2021 and – a bit of a surprise – a Review of Technological Protection Measures Exceptions.

To quote from the “have your say” page, the exposure draft amendment bill includes 5 main reform measures:

  • Schedule 1—Limitation on remedies for use of orphan works
  • Schedule 2—New fair dealing exception for non-commercial quotation
  • Schedule 3—Update and clarify library and archives exceptions
  • Schedule 4—Update and restore education exceptions
  • Schedule 5—Streamline the government statutory licensing scheme.

There are also five, 5!, schedules of “additional minor and technical amendments”!

What follows is a very rough and ready summary of a couple of “bits”.

Quotation

The exposure draft posits a new fair dealing defence in respect of public copyright material for the purposes of either non-commercial quotation or quotation for a commercial purpose in relation to a product or service if the quotation is immaterial to the value of that product or service.

The defence would be available only to libraries, archives, educational institutions, the Commonwealth or a State, or someone authorised by them, or a person or organisation for the purpose of research.

There are also other conditions.

The discussion paper includes some examples of things which might fall within or without the defence.

Orphan Works

The exposure draft would introduce a new defence to infringement where someone reproduces etc. copyright material after a reasonably diligent search has failed to identify the copyright owner or, if the owner be identified, they cannot be contacted.

If the author is known, he or she or they must also be identified in the reproduction etc. where that is reasonably practicable.

Then, if the copyright owner pops up, either the owner or the user can apply to the Copyright Tribunal for orders to fix the terms of use. The Tribunal may make orders only to the extent it considers them reasonable.

TPM Review

Under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, Australia is required to review its laws relating to technological protection measures every four years.

Apparently, the last review was in 2017. So it’s time for another one.

The discussion paper does say the review is to look at whether the existing exceptions are fit for purpose, need to be repealed or modified and whether new exceptions are required.

If you want a new exception, s 249 sets out criteria that need to be satisfied before the Minister could implement it. These include provision of credible evidence about the matters set out in that provision.

If you are moved to provide submissions, they should be sent in by 11 February 2022.

Have your say page

Exposure draft  Copyright Amendment (Access Reform) Bill (pdf)

Discussion paper (pdf)

There are also Word versions of the exposure draft bill and the discussion paper available via the Have your say page.

Should AI systems be classifiable as patent inventors?

Leave a Comment / Patents / By / 5 October 2021 / , ,

Last month, Melbourne Uni. held a seminar in which Professors Gans (Toronto), Paterson (Melbourne) and Weatherall debated whether AI systems could or should be considered inventors for the purposes of patent law.

A video recording of their discussion is now available here.

Meanwhile, the Max Planck Institute in Germany has published:

The ACIP Designs Amendments have been enacted

Leave a Comment / Designs / By / 1 October 2021 / , , , , , , , ,

On 10 September 2021, the Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Act 2021 received Royal Assent, becoming the 100th statute enaceted by the Commonwealth Parliament this year.[1]

As the marvellously evocative title indicates, this Act amends the Designs Act 2003 to implement the recommendations of ACIP’s Review of the Designs System: Final Report from March 2015 which have been accepted.

Two amendments come into force straight away. The rest (unless proclaimed earlier) come into force 6 months (and a day) later – 11 10 March 2022.

Amendments with immediate effect

So, for design applications made on or after 11 September 2021, the distinctiveness of a design and its infringement will now be tested by the standard of “the familiar person”.[2] That is, s 19(4) has been amended to test distinctiveness:[3]

(4) In applying subsections (1), (2) and (3), the person must apply the standard of a person (the familiar person) who is familiar with the product to which the design relates, or products similar to the product to which the design relates (the standard of the informed user) (whether or not the familiar person is a user of the product to which the design relates or of products similar to the product to which the design relates).

Australia’s adventure in testing the validity and infringement of a registered design by somethin akin to the EU’s “informed user”, therefore, has come to an end.

Also, s 93(3) has been amended so that the registration of a design can be revoked on lack of entitlement grounds only if the Court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so in all the circumstances. This brings revocation on entitlement grounds in line with the Patents Act.[4] The idea here being to ameliorate the harshness of the sanction to validity in the case of essentially honest mistakes.

This amendment will apply to any applications to revoke a registered design made on or after 11 September 2021. It does not matter when the design was registered.[5]

Amendments coming into force later

The remainder of the amendments come into operation later: If not earlier proclaimed, on the day after six months from Royal Assent.

A number of these have been covered in earlier posts. They include:

  • the 12 month grace period for publications or public uses made before the priority date by or with the consent of the registered owner, a predecessor in title or “the person who created the design” (Schedule 1);
  • conferring power on exclusive licensees to sue for infringement (Schedule 5);
  • the introduction of an exemption from infringement on the grounds of prior use (Schedule 2);
  • the application process will be changed so that, if a request for registration is not filed with the design application, a request will be deemed to have been made 6 months from the application date (if not made earlier or the application has not been withdrawn).[6] In other words (and assuming the application passed the formalities test), a design will be registered automatically 6 months after the application is filed rather than lapse if no request has been filed (Schedule 3);
  • relief from liability for infringement for acts done before the design was registered (i.e. between the priority date and publication of the design) (Schedule 4);
  • removal of the unused option to publish a design rather than register it (Schedule 3).

There are also some other, technical amendments.

Some care will be needed with the “transitional provisions”. For the most part, the amendments will apply only to design applications made on or after the commencement of the relevant amendments.

Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Act 2021

Explanatory Memorandum

Addendeum to the Explanatory Memorandum

The ACIP Report

Lid dip to Brett Massey at IP Australia for drawing my attention to the correct date the second round commence (assuming not proclaimed earlier).

  1. At the time of writing, the Act does not appear to be on Austlii, but you can find it here.  ?
  2. Schedule 7 Part 1 item 5(1) and (2).  ?
  3. Text in italics inserted by the amendment. This is my mark up I’m afraid.  ?
  4. Patents Act 1990 s 22A and s 138(4).  ?
  5. Schedule 7 Part 2 item 8 and Explanatory Memorandum para 248.  ?
  6. The “relevant period” is to be prescribed in the regulations but the helpful flow chart included in the Explanatory Memorandum indicates the “relevant period” will be 6 months.  ?

DABUS Down Under take 3

Leave a Comment / Patents / By / 31 August 2021 / , , , , ,

Following last month’s ruling in Thaler that an AI could be an inventor for the purposes of Australian patent law, the Commissioner of Patents has announced her intention to appeal the decision to the Full Court.

Pursuant to s 158(2), the Commissioner requires leave to appeal. Bearing in mind that Beach J’s decision is the first substantive consideration anywhere in the world to accept that an AI could be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act, however, that should not prove too much of an obstacle in this case.

Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879

Thaler: the robots have arrived DownUnder

Leave a Comment / Patents / By / 5 August 2021 / , , , ,

In what may well be a world first,[1] Beach J has upheld Thaler’s appeal from the Commissioner, ruling that an AI can be an inventor (or at least that someone who derives title to the invention from an AI can be an entitled person).

Stephen L. Thaler applied for a patent, AU 2019363177, entitled “Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention”.[2] The application named the inventor as:

DABUS, The invention was autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence

The application was made through the PCT so, as a result, reg. 3.2C(2)(aa) required the applicant to provide the name of the inventor. The Commissioner had used the identification provided to reject the application on the basis that an “inventor” must be a natural person, which an AI obviously was not.

Beach J rejected this approach. At [10], his Honour summarised his conclusions:

in my view an artificial intelligence system can be an inventor for the purposes of the Act. First, an inventor is an agent noun; an agent can be a person or thing that invents. Second, so to hold reflects the reality in terms of many otherwise patentable inventions where it cannot sensibly be said that a human is the inventor. Third, nothing in the Act dictates the contrary conclusion.

There are a number of strands to his Honour’s reasoning. Perhaps, the most striking feature of his Honour’s reasoning is his Honour’s emphasis the role of patents in encouraging technological development and the importance of not impeding progress by shutting out new developments.

DABUS

Dr Thaler was the owner of the copyright in DABUS’ source code. He was also responsible for and the operator of the computer on which DABUS operated. He did not, however, produce the claimed invention.

As the description of the “inventor” indicates, the claimed invention was an output from the operation of DABUS.

Beach J did not propose to offer a definition of “artificial intelligence”. His Honour considered that DABUS, at least as described in Dr Thaler’s evidence, was not just a “brute force computational tool”. Instead, it was appropriate to describe DABUS as semi-autonomous.[3]

DABUS itself consisted of multiple neural networks. At first, the connections between these networks was trained with human assistance by presentation of fundamental concepts. As the system accumulated knowledge, the networks connected themselves into increasingly longer chains. And then DABUS became capable of generating notions itself – the unsupervised (by humans) generative learning phase. Once in this phase, DABUS was capable of randomn generation of concepts and identifying those which were novel. In addition, it was trained or programmed to identify significant concepts which continued operation further reinforced. At [41], Beach J summarised:

The upshot of all of this, which I accept for present purposes, is that DABUS could be described as self-organising as a cumulative result of algorithms collaboratively generating complexity. DABUS generates novel patterns of information rather than simply associating patterns. Further, it is capable of adapting to new scenarios without additional human input. Further, the artificial intelligence’s software is self-assembling. So, it is not just a human generated software program that then generates a spectrum of possible solutions to a problem combined with a filtering algorithm to optimise the outcome.

Beach J accepted at [42] Dr Thaler’s evidence that:

DABUS, and its underlying neural paradigm, represents a paradigm shift in machine learning since it is based upon the transient chaining topologies formed among associative memories, rather than activation patterns of individual neurons appearing within static architectures ….

Beach J’s reasons

At [118], Beach J pointed out that no specific provision in the Act precluded an artificial intelligence from being an “inventor”.

Secondly, Beach J considered that patent law is different to copyright law which specifically requires human authors and recognition of moral rights.

Thirdly, as it was not defined in the Act, the term “inventor” should be given its ordinary meaning. Dictionary definitions did not help with this as more was required “than mere resort to old millennium usages of that world.”[4] Instead, at [120]:

the word “inventor” is an agent noun. In agent nouns, the suffix “or” or “er” indicates that the noun describes the agent that does the act referred to by the verb to which the suffix is attached. “Computer”, “controller”, “regulator”, “distributor”, “collector”, “lawnmower” and “dishwasher” are all agent nouns. As each example demonstrates, the agent can be a person or a thing. Accordingly, if an artificial intelligence system is the agent which invents, it can be described as an “inventor”.

Importantly, Beach J took into account the purpose of the patents system. At [121], his Honour explained:

in considering the scheme of the Act, it has been said that a widening conception of “manner of manufacture” is a necessary feature of the development of patent law in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as scientific discoveries inspire new technologies”.[5]

Accordingly, it made little sense to apply a flexible conception of subject matter – “manner of (new) manufacture under s 18(1)(a) – but a restrictive interpretation of ”inventor“. This would mean an otherwise patentable invention could not be patented because there was no ”inventor”.

Beach J’s purposive approach was reinforced by reference to the newly enacted objects clause:

The object of this Act is to provide a patent system in Australia that promotes economic wellbeing through technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology. In doing so, the patent system balances over time the interests of producers, owners and users of technology and the public.

It was not necessary to identify an ambiguity before resorting to the objects clause. The objects clause should always be considered when construing legislation.

It was consistent with the object of the Act to interpret “inventor” in a way which promoted technological innovation. Allowing “computer inventorship” would incentivise computer scientists to develop creative machines. Moreover, the object of the Act would not be advanced if the owners of creative computers resorted to trade secret protection instead of the patent system.

At least, with respect, his Honour’s approach shows that s 2A can operate in favour of technological development by encouraging patenting rather than, as many feared, a cat’s paw justifying resort to an ex post analysis[6] in favour of ‘user rights’.

In a further bold development, Beach J considered ([135] – [145]) that the Act is “really concerned” with inventive step. Under s 7(2), the issue was whether or not the patent claimed a sufficient technological advance over what had gone before to warrant the grant of a monopoly. How that advance was made was not relevant.

Descending to the detail of s 15, Beach J first pointed out at [157] that s 15 is directed to who may be granted a patent and does not define who is an inventor. Beach J accepted that DABUS was not a person and so under s15 could not be a person entitled to the grant of a patent. Even though s 15(1)(a) identified “a person who is the inventor” as the first person entitled to the patent, this was not determinative. It was directed to a different issue than definition of “an inventor”.

Although DABUS could not be an entitled person, Beach J found that Dr Thaler qualified as an entitled person at least on the basis of s 15(1)(b). At [167], his Honour explained:

Dr Thaler is the owner, programmer and operator of DABUS, the artificial intelligence system that made the invention; in that sense the invention was made for him. On established principles of property law, he is the owner of the invention. In that respect, the ownership of the work of the artificial intelligence system is analogous to ownership of the progeny of animals or the treatment of fruit or crops produced by the labour and expense of the occupier of the land (fructus industrialis), which are treated as chattels with separate existence to the land.

By this means, his Honour neatly side-stepped philosophical questions, some of which he had adverted to earlier. For example, at [131] Beach J asked:

If the output of an artificial intelligence system is said to be the invention, who is the inventor? And if a human is required, who? The programmer? The owner? The operator? The trainer? The person who provided input data? All of the above? None of the above? ….

Beach J returned to this aspect of the problem at [194]:

more generally there are various possibilities for patent ownership of the output of an artificial intelligence system. First, one might have the software programmer or developer of the artificial intelligence system, who no doubt may directly or via an employer own copyright in the program in any event. Second, one might have the person who selected and provided the input data or training data for and trained the artificial intelligence system. Indeed, the person who provided the input data may be different from the trainer. Third, one might have the owner of the artificial intelligence system who invested, and potentially may have lost, their capital to produce the output. Fourth, one might have the operator of the artificial intelligence system. But in the present case it would seem that Dr Thaler is the owner.

As Dr Thaler combined in the one person the roles of owner, programmer and operator, he was entitled to the fruits of its operation. Would different problems arise if, instead of being embodied in the one person, each of the functions identified lay in a different person?

Returning to [131], Beach J continued immediately following the extract quoted above, saying:

…. In my view, in some cases it may be none of the above. In some cases, the better analysis, which is consistent with the s 2A object, is to say that the system itself is the inventor. That would reflect the reality. And you would avoid otherwise uncertainty. And indeed that may be the case if the unit embodying the artificial intelligence has its own autonomy. What if it is free to trawl the internet to obtain its own input or training data? What about a robot operating independently in a public space, having its own senses, learning from the environment, and making its own decisions? ….

If one can start with the AI as the inventor, that arguably simplifies the analysis in terms of entitlement as the person claiming to be the entitled person will need to show some claim over the results of the operation of the machine.

One final point. It is not clear from the reasons the extent to which Beach J was referred to the controversies around the world arising from Dr Thaler’s applications. It didn’t matter.

At [220], his Honour pointed out that they were irrelevant to the task before him: the interpretation of the words of the Australian Act.

I am not at all sure that “the world” has reached a settled position about the question whether AIs can be inventors. One would hope, however, Australian law does not head down yet another path where “we” are granting patents for things which are not patentable in their ‘home’ countries. It will, for example, be another 12 years or so before we are finally in something like parity on inventive step with the “rest” of the world and have escaped the constraints of the pre-Raising the Bar tests of inventive step.

Two questions

This short summary cannot do justice to the detailed arguments developed over 228 paragraphs.

As discussed above, Beach J accepted that DABUS could not be granted a patent as it was not a person and s 15 specifies that the grantee of a patent must be a person. The Commissioner had proceeded on the basis that the terms of s 15 were predicated on the “old millennium” understanding that title to an invention flowed from the person who was the inventor just as subsistence and ownership of copyright flows from the person who is the author of the work. Beach J has sidestepped that on the basis that s 15 is concerned only with entitlement, not definition of who is an inventor. Nonetheless, one might think s 15 was drafted in this way on the basis that entitledment flowed from the inventor. It does also seem somewhat curious that an AI can be an inventor but not entitled to a patent because it is not a person.

Secondly, much of the controversy overseas has been about whether Dr Thaler’s creation acts autonomously or semi-autonomously or is just an exercise in brute computing. See for example Rose Hughes’ report on IPKat. Beach J appears to have had some evidence from Dr Thaler about how DABUS was designed and worked. Thus at [43], his Honour accepted Dr Thaler’s “assertion” that:

DABUS, and its underlying neural paradigm, represents a paradigm shift in machine learning since it is based upon the transient chaining topologies formed among associative memories, rather than activation patterns of individual neurons appearing within static architectures. From an engineering perspective, the use of network resonances to drive the formation of chaining topologies, spares programmers the ordeal of matching the output nodes of one [artificial neural network] with the input nodes of others, as in deep learning schemes. In effect, complex neural architectures autonomously wire themselves together using only scalar resonances.

Reinforcement or weakening of such chains takes place when they appropriate special hot button nets containing memories of salient consequences. Therefore, instead of following error gradients, as in traditional artificial neural net training, conceptual chains are reinforced in proportion to the numbers and significances of advantages offered. Classification is not in terms of human defined categories, but via the consequence chains branching organically from any given concept, effectively providing functional definitions of it. Ideas form as islands of neural modules aggregate through simple learning rules, the semantic portions thereof, being human readable as pidgin language.

Later his Honour asked at [127] – [128]:

Who sets the goal for the system? The human programmer or operator? Or does the system set and define its own goal? Let the latter be assumed. Further, even if the human programmer or operator sets the goal, does the system have free choice in choosing between various options and pathways in order to achieve the goal? Let that freedom also be assumed. Further, who provides or selects the input data? Let it be assumed that the system can trawl for and select its own data. Further, the larger the choice for the system in terms of the algorithms and iterations developed for the artificial neural networks and their interaction, the more autonomous the system. Let it be assumed that one is dealing with a choice of the type that DABUS has in the sense that I have previously described.

Making all of these assumptions, can it seriously be said that the system is just a brute force computational tool? Can it seriously be said that the system just manifests automation rather than autonomy? ….

If by “assumptions” his Honour is referring to the evidence from Dr Thaler at [42] and [43] which his Honour accepted, that is one thing. It may be quite another thing if they were in fact assumptions.

Where to now?

At the time of writing, the Commissioner is understood to be considering whether or not to appeal.

Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879

  1. The EPO refused the corresponding patent application with the oral hearing of the appeal to be heard on 21 December 2021. Apparently, the corresponding patent has been granted in South Africa which, I am given to understand, effectively does not operate a substantive examination system.  ?
  2. For an interesting discussion, see “The first AI inventor – IPKat searches for the facts behind the hype” and the later report on the USPTO’s consultations “Is it time to move on from the AI inventor debate?”  ?
  3. At [19] – [29], Beach J provides an overview of how his Honour understands artificial neural networks work.  ?
  4. At [15]. For the lawyers, [148] – [154] set out the technical arguments for the limitations of dictionaries in some detail.  ?
  5. Diplomatically (and consistently with precedent) citing D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc (2015) 258 CLR 334 at [18] perhaps the single biggest retreat from the teleological approach declared in NRDC.  ?
  6. For example, Mark A Lemley, ‘Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justifications for Intellectual Property’  ?