An innovative patent must provide a substantial contribution to the working of the invention. The case concerned the display of information on fixed and handheld devices. The provision of a handheld remote control was not seen as a substantial contribution to the working of the invention. Absent any remote display, the provision of information on a remote display would have provided a substantial contribution.
Invalidating an innovation patent for want of innovative step can be a difficult process. Features that provide any type of advantage in the context of the invention may be seen to provide a substantial improvement to the working of the thing (and not to be seen as superficial or peripheral to the invention). For this reason, it is generally necessary to find a clear knockout in a single document or an act. A single source of information test applies that excludes general incorporations by reference.
Features disclosed in a drawing were held to provide sufficient support for amendments to the claim scope of an invention.
The Applicant had been given an opportunity to amend. In considering whether to grant a further opportunity to amend, weight was given to:(i) the invention having patentable subject matter; and (ii) there there being a genuine attempt to amend.
Another manner of manufacture case. Substance of the invention test applied.
Matters before the Patent Office are judged on the basis of a balance of probabilities. Apple Inc. [2021] APO 28 illustrates that matters an alleged prior public use will be scrutinized with care.
A presentation of information type application was held to lack a techical effect in Europe
There have been a number of decisions from the Australian Patent Office regarding some software related inventions. Apple Inc. [2021] APO 18 is a favourable decision.
This case considered claim support under the Patents Act 1990 (Australia)
The case concerned inventorship of method and apparatus claims. There was inventive skill in the arrangement of the apparatus. It was not a case of adding common general knowledge to the inventive concept. It was held that there was joint inventorship.