IP Spotlight - December 2025

December 2025 NEWS FROM AUSTRALIA IP SPOTLIGHT

Page 2

Welcome to the final edition of IP Spotlight for 2025. As we reflect on the year that has been, we extend our warmest wishes to you and your loved ones for a safe and joyful festive season. In this edition, we share our end of year message and details of our office closures over the holiday period. We are also delighted to bring you the latest updates, insights, and developments shaping the Australian intellectual property landscape. Our team has curated expert analysis, practical guidance, and thought-provoking commentary to support you in navigating the evolving world of innovation and IP protection. Thank you for your continued readership and engagement throughout the year. We hope you enjoy this final edition of IP Spotlight from Wrays, and we look forward to bringing you more insights in 2026.

Merry Christmas from Wrays

Wrays appoints Vineetha Veerakumar as Head of Trade Marks

Page 4

Securing Innovation - How IP is Powering the Critical Minerals Boom

Page 6

The Top 7 IP Mistakes General Counsel Make (and How to Avoid Them)

Page 12

A Win for Computer Implemented Inventions in Australia - Aristocrat Technologies v. Commissioner of Patents FCAFC 131

Page 18

Patents in Orbit - Global IP Trends in the New Space Race

Page 22

Turning One Meeting into Momentum - How to Get Real Value From Your IP Advisor

Page 28

Paula Adamson CEO

From Rivalry to Rights - Safeguarding Cricket and The Ashes Through IP

Page 32

Dear Friends & Colleagues,

As we come to the end of another year, all of us at Wrays would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to our clients and Associates for your continued trust, collaboration, and support throughout 2025. This year has been exceptional for so many of you, and as IP professionals, there is nothing more rewarding than seeing our clients succeed. From clinical breakthroughs and company listings to FDA approvals, new market entries, successful dispute outcomes and the awards and grants you’ve secured, it has been truly exciting to witness your achievements and support your new ideas, technologies, and businesses. This year also marked an exciting chapter for our firm. In September, we announced that Wrays, with its long tradition of innovation and IP excellence, had joined the Rouse Group an international IP firm. This has strengthened our ability to support our clients even further, combining our local expertise and service with Rouse’s international reach, deep sector knowledge, and advanced technology platforms. While joining Rouse enhances our global capabilities, our clients’ best interests remain at the heart of everything we do. Wrays continues to collaborate with a broad network of associate firms, always choosing the right partners to best serve each client’s specific needs. We remain incredibly proud of our firm culture and career pathways, reflected in some of the highest retention rates in the IP industry. This year, we celebrated several significant milestones, including Dr Brendan Peachey’s 25 years with the firm, farewelled the much-loved and respected Janet Stead as she prepares for a well deserved retirement, and announced the appointment of Vineetha Veerakumar as our new Head of Trade Marks. Wrays will take a short break from close of business on 24 December 2025, reopening on 2 January 2026. If you need support during this time, please reach out to us at wrays@wrays.com.au, as this inbox will continue to be monitored. Thank you for allowing us to be a part of your success this year. We wish you a safe, restful holiday season and look forward to supporting you in 2026. The Wrays Team

Festive Season WISHING YOU A SAFE AND HAPPY

Wrays appoints Vineetha Veerakumar as Head of Trade Marks

4 | wrays.com.au

Speaking on her appointment, Vineetha said:

In September, Wrays announced the hiring of Vineetha Veerakumar as our new Head of Trade Marks. Vineetha brings extensive expertise to Wrays, with a career spanning both in-house and private practice roles. A qualified lawyer, Vineetha has held senior positions as IP Counsel at one of the world’s largest brands in the tech and e-commerce space and, most recently, with King & Wood Mallesons in Sydney. Vineetha’s practice spans the full spectrum of trade mark law, from contentious and non-contentious matters to advising global leaders on the management, enforcement and commercialisation of large-scale brand portfolios. Widely respected in the intellectual property community, Vineetha is valued by clients and peers alike for her practical, commercially focused approach and is often described as ‘a safe pair of hands’ and ‘a true expert in trade mark law’, reflecting the deep trust she has built throughout her career. Vineetha’s appointment further strengthens Wrays’ national Trade Mark team, which advises on global brand portfolios as well as some of Australia’s most recognised and loved brands. Vineetha is based in Sydney and works alongside Trade Mark Principal Marie Wong, who continues to manage Wrays’ substantial Western Australian trade mark client base. Throughout her career, Vineetha has actively contributed to the development of the IP profession, holding committee roles with both the International Trademark Association (INTA) and the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ).

I am thrilled to be joining Wrays, a firm renowned for its strength in trade mark services. I look forward to building on the firm’s impressive national practice while also expanding opportunities to support clients on the global stage. Working alongside Marie and the exceptional Wrays team across Australia, I am excited to meet the clients of Wrays and help their brands continue to thrive.

Wrays CEO Paula Adamson welcomed the appointment, stating:

Vineetha has built an impressive track record advising clients ranging from start-ups to multinationals. She is a highly regarded trade mark specialist who consistently delivers exceptional client service. We are delighted to have her join our team and we look forward to the expertise and leadership she will bring to our trade mark practice.”

Vineetha can be contacted using the details below: Vineetha Veerakumar Principal & Head of Trade Marks T +61 2 8415 6507 vineetha.veerakumar@wrays.com.au linkedin.com/in/vineetha-veerakumar/

SECURING INNOVATION How IP is Powering the Critical Minerals Boom

As Australian patent attorney’s working closely with innovators in the critical minerals sector, we see firsthand how intellectual property (IP) is becoming the cornerstone of competitive advantage in this rapidly evolving field. Australia is uniquely positioned to lead in the global critical minerals landscape. But this leadership won’t be secured by geology alone, it requires strategic innovation, well protected IP, and a clear understanding of the challenges and opportunities ahead. Critical minerals are essential to the energy transition and to modern technologies. With significant deposits of lithium, nickel, rare earth elements, and copper, along with established mining expertise, Australia already plays an important role in global supply chains. Under the Net Zero scenario, this role is expected to grow. AUSTRALIA’S ROLE IN THE CRITICAL MINERALS SECTOR A significant technical bottleneck in the critical minerals sector lies in refining and processing capacity, which is heavily concentrated in a few countries – particularly China. China processes around 70% of global graphite and 90% of rare earth elements. These processing bottlenecks remain even with diversified raw material sources. For example, while Australia mines 55% of lithium globally, China refines 65% into battery-grade material. This creates serious supply chain vulnerabilities, as shown in 2023 when China banned antimony exports to the U.S. The Australian Government’s Critical Minerals Strategy 2023–2030 outlines a plan to expand downstream processing and strengthen supply chain resilience. But doing so means solving complex technical challenges, from advanced separation techniques to sustainable refining processes. REFINING BOTTLENECKS: A TECHNICAL AND STRATEGIC IP CHALLENGE

lithium recovery and processing Here’s where IP becomes indispensable. Patents and trade secrets can be used to protect the technologies that underpin new refining processes, separation techniques, and recycling methods. For companies, a well-structured IP strategy can protect proprietary processing technologies, create licensing opportunities, increase valuation, block competitors, and reduce infringement risks. At the national level, stronger IP control will support domestic ownership of critical technologies, reduce reliance on foreign technologies, and strengthen Australia’s position in global supply chains. Since 2010, there has been a steady increase in international patent filings relating to critical minerals technologies. The innovation hotspots include: TRACKING INNOVATION: PATENT TRENDS IN CRITICAL MINERALS battery materials extraction and refining of metals such as nickel, aluminium, and rare earth oxides Recent trends also show growing activity in advanced processing systems, novel extraction techniques, and AI-driven exploration tools. Chart: Insights to the relative priority countries of origin.

7 | wrays.com.au

Map: Geographic distribution of patent filings in critical minerals technologies.

Despite increased investment in critical minerals, Australia’s global share of related IP has not grown in recent years. In contrast, Chinese entities continue to lead in securing IP rights in this area, as in other strategically sensitive technologies.

SUSTAINABILITY AS A COMPETITIVE DRIVER

Licensing has become a major driver in bringing critical minerals innovations to market. Instead of going it alone, companies are licensing their extraction or processing technologies or entering joint development deals. This approach can accelerate scale-up, save capital, and provide access to wider distribution channels or manufacturing capacity. Companies are using patents strategically to protect technologies in high-demand areas, like electrochemical lithium extraction or rare earth separation. Licensing these IP portfolios can become a key revenue stream and competitive differentiator, especially for startups or research spin-offs. Smaller or mid-tier miners can also reduce capital risk by opting to license proven IP instead of developing expensive processes in house. THE RISE OF LICENSING AND STRATEGIC IP DEPLOYMENT

Critical minerals extraction and processing can cause significant environmental impacts, including land degradation, water stress, and hazardous waste generation. Recycling rates for key minerals remain below 1% because they are embedded in complex products and current recovery methods are expensive and inefficient. The lack of effective recycling and reuse systems means supply depends almost entirely on new extraction, increasing pressure on ecosystems and raising long-term sustainability concerns. Encouragingly, more innovators are now patenting technologies that reduce environmental impact, including:

innovative extraction methods energy-efficient recycling processes cleaner mineral processing systems

8 | wrays.com.au

In today’s innovation economy, IP is not just protection – it is also a currency. A robust patent portfolio or defined trade-secret strategies can: IP AS A MAGNET FOR INVESTMENT AND PARTNERSHIP signal to investors that a company has something unique and defensible strengthen negotiating positions, allowing companies to secure better terms in supply agreements, joint ventures, or technology sharing arrangements provide a barrier to entry, making it harder for competitors to replicate critical methods. COMMON IP PITFALLS IN CRITICAL MINERALS INNOVATION There are a number of common IP pitfalls can substantially undermine both the commercial and strategic value of a business. R&D often occurs in collaborative settings, which may lead to ambiguity surrounding IP ownership, joint ownership (which may restrict commercialisation), or even difficulty in managing confidential information or trade secrets. To mitigate these risks, businesses need to implement clear contractual frameworks that define background IP, assign project IP explicitly, and incorporate strong IP governance practices such as innovation capture systems and confidentiality training. Early disclosure can destroy novelty, making it impossible to secure patents later. Premature disclosure can also alert competitors to emerging technologies, giving them a head start in developing alternative solutions or filing competing patents. Premature Disclosure Unclear Ownership These include:

Essential safeguards include strict internal disclosure protocols, robust non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), and mandatory internal IP reviews before any external communication.

Freedom to Operate Risks

The critical minerals sector relies heavily on patented technologies. Without a proper freedom to-operate (FTO) analysis, a company may invest heavily in technology only to face patent infringement claims, costly redesigns, or litigation. Comprehensive FTO searches, conducted early and supported by technical IP expertise, help mitigate this risk. In acquisitions and strategic investments, weak IP due diligence can strip value from otherwise groundbreaking technologies. Unclear ownership, unenforceable patents, or restrictive licence terms can limit the use of critical processes or block commercialisation altogether. In the critical minerals sector, where IP may be tied up in joint ventures or subject to government funding conditions, thorough IP audits are essential before closing a deal. Inadequate IP Due Diligence in M&A Transactions STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR IP IN CRITICAL MINERALS Stakeholders in the critical minerals sector have opportunities to align their IP strategies more closely with business goals by: Integrating IP Planning into Early-Stage R&D Ensure patents and trade secrets are considered during project design, not as an afterthought. Align R&D priorities with technologies that have the highest commercial or strategic potential. Linking IP to Investment and Funding Strategies Use IP portfolios to attract venture capital, private equity, or government funding. Highlight patented or protected technologies as key assets in investment pitches.

9 | wrays.com.au

Aligning IP with Partnerships and Joint Ventures Clearly define ownership, licensing, and usage rights when entering collaborations. Structure agreements to maximise commercial leverage while protecting core technologies. Incorporating IP in Risk Management Conduct freedom-to-operate analyses to avoid infringement and potential litigation. Use IP to block competitors and protect supply chain advantages. Developing a Long-Term IP Roadmap Plan IP filings and strategy over the lifecycle of the business, from exploration to downstream processing and recycling. Coordinate IP activities with product development, commercialisation, and international expansion. Rapid growth in the critical minerals sector brings a distinct set of legal and strategic challenges. Protecting IP is more than filing patents; it’s about maintaining a competitive edge, facilitating cross border collaboration, and navigating a complex global IP landscape. This is especially important in an industry where technological advantage and proprietary know-how can determine long-term success. By developing a strong IP strategy, companies can continue advancing new technologies while doing so with clear strategic direction. CONCLUSION: INNOVATION ALONE ISN’T ENOUGH

Dr Brendan Peachey Principal

Victoria Seville Technical Assistant

10 | wrays.com.au

THE TOP 7 IP MISTAKES GENERAL COUNSEL MAKE (and How to Avoid Them)

Navigating intellectual property (IP) as General Counsel can be difficult. There are so many different forms of IP, each of which comes with its own complex set of rules and requirements. As IP professionals, we often see the same mistakes being made, from self-publishing inventions to inadvertently using copyright material. Rectifying these mistakes through litigation or a negotiated settlement is almost invariably expensive and time consuming, and sometimes impossible. Even more frustrating is the fact that most mistakes could easily have been avoided with a planning from the outset. In this article, we discuss some of the more common IP traps for General Counsel and ways to avoid them.

GENERATED IP 1

FORGETTING TO CAPTURE EMPLOYEE

Employees generate new IP all the time. They are constantly discovering new ways of doing things, making small but meaningful tweaks to products and processes and creating new works. If you are not capturing these, your business could be missing out on valuable IP assets and not fully capitalising on its investments. HOLD REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH TECHNICAL TEAMS AND EDUCATE STAFF ABOUT IP The volume of activity within a large organisation makes keeping tracking of and even identifying these innovations difficult. To improve your visibility – and your team’s focus on IP – you might consider holding regular meetings with technical staff, or their supervisors, to discuss

12 | wrays.com.au

what they’re working on. If technical staff are too busy for more meetings, perhaps periodically join any existing team meetings to learn about their work. Other strategies include educating staff and providing regular reminders about the importance of sharing (potential) innovations or, simply having a welcoming, open door policy to everyone who thinks they may have something valuable. EVEN SMALL, NON-OBVIOUS IMPROVEMENTS MAY QUALIFY FOR PATENT PROTECTION. In that vein, the bar for patent protection is lower than some General Counsel may realise. The standard for patentability is “new and inventive”, not “new and groundbreaking”. An inventive step can be found in seemingly small improvements and changes, with even a small spark of ingenuity often being enough. All that is required is that the invention was not obvious to a skilled technician. As a rule of thumb, ask yourself whether the innovation addressed a problem in a new way: if it did, it may be worth talking to a patent attorney to find out if it can be protected with a patent. FILE FOR PATENTS OR REGISTERED DESIGNS BEFORE PUBLISHING OR COMMERCIALLY USING Remember that you can lose your ability to obtain a patent (or a registered design) if you publish the work, or commercially use the invention, before filing an application. While some countries have grace periods (for instance, you can file a patent application in Australia up to 12 months after making the invention public), they are not available in all countries. It is far better to apply for a patent or registered design early on, otherwise you may effectively extinguish those IP rights forever. You therefore need to be proactive and regularly check in with employees to ensure that all valuable IP rights are being identified and protected in a timely fashion. Your protected IP assets need to grow and move with your operations. A patent that was filed 10 years ago may no longer cover what the business is doing today as product features or processes change. The same applies to registered designs. Logos and branding are often modernised. These incremental changes add up, and it’s not uncommon, and very frustrating, to find that copycats don’t actually infringe existing IP rights. NOT KEEPING PACE WITH DEVELOPMENTS 2

It is important to regularly compare the commercial offerings of the business with its IP portfolio to ensure that they do not drift apart.

ASSIGNMENTS 3

OVERLOOKING IP OWNERSHIP AND

Establishing entitlement to IP assets is more complex than many realise. Generally, IP assets are created by people; the rights to those assets need to be assigned to the business. There are a few mechanisms for effecting these assignments. IP may be assigned prospectively through a general assignment clause in an employment agreement or a consultancy agreement. It may also be assigned through a retrospective assignment that specifically refers to the IP asset. If you do not own an IP asset, you cannot register it as a patent, design or trade mark. Worse still, you may find consultants using what you had assumed was the business’ IP or authorising your competitors to use that IP. INCLUDE BROAD IP ASSIGNMENT CLAUSES IN EMPLOYMENT AND CONSULTANCY AGREEMENTS You should ensure that all employment agreements include a broad IP assignment clause in favour of your business. The rights to all inventions, designs, trade marks and copyright created by your employees should be automatically assigned to the business. This is important, though it is not enough on its own to protect you. In practice, things are often more complicated. DEFINE EMPLOYEES’ DUTIES CLEARLY TO CAPTURE ALL RELEVANT INNOVATIONS Many employees create works both in the course of their employment and on their own time. Distinguishing between the two can be difficult but it is critical, as generally only works created for the business are owned by the business. You can significantly reduce this risk by clearly defining employees’ duties in their employment agreements to capture works they create that are relevant to your business. Similarly, if you have employees whom it is anticipated may contribute to developing inventions, ensure their employment agreements explicitly state that creating inventions is an expected part of their duties, to maximise the likelihood that the business will be the owner of such possible innovations.

13 | wrays.com.au

SECURE EXPRESS IP ASSIGNMENTS IN CONTRACTS WITH EXTERNAL COLLABORATORS It is also common for many people to collaborate to produce an invention, design or creative work. However, not all contributors will be inventors, designers or authors. It is important to understand how the IP asset was created, and each person’s contribution, to ensure that the business has assignments from all relevant contributors. This is more straightforward where all collaborators are employees with assignment clauses in their employment agreements. However, if employees were assisted by a third party – such as an external consultant who has not assigned their rights to the business – that consultant may retain an ownership stake in the asset. Avoiding this issue requires planning. Employees should also be warned about the danger of informally discussing projects with external consultants. If a consultant is brought in, their role should be clearly defined in advance, they should stay within the confines of their engagement, and their consultancy agreement should contain confidentiality/non-disclosure provisions and clearly capture and assign (to the business) any IP assets that they generate while working for the business. When retaining creative agencies like brand consultants, graphic designers, artists and photographers, you should ensure that the retainer agreement includes an assignment of any IP assets that they generate for the business. This applies to brand names, logos, slogans and other marketing materials. In some situations, IP assets may automatically vest in the company, but this does not apply to all works in all circumstances. For simplicity and peace of mind, it is better to have the assignment expressly set out in an agreement. If IP and/or innovation is the lifeblood of your business, you need to be strategic about how you manage your portfolio. Once IP assets like patents and registered designs expire, revenues can drastically decline as competitors are free to enter the market with cheaper prices. To safeguard against this possibility, whenever developing improvements to your existing offerings, your technical staff should be NEGLECTING LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT 4

specifically looking for innovations that may be protectable with either a patent or design registration. For sophisticated organisations, deciding which innovations to explore and develop, patentability and design registrability are as important as functionality. If an innovation cannot be protected, it may well have little practical value to the business, and you should think seriously before pursuing it any further. Commercially, try to transition your customers to improved products or services that are covered by new IP rights well before the rights to your existing offerings expire. While competitors may be able to exploit your old inventions as patents and registered designs expire but, by being strategic, you can develop your customer’s appreciation for your “new and improved” protected technology and keep them from purchasing your competitors’ outdated technology. All too often, businesses find out very late into a product’s development that their new product or service infringes another party’s IP rights. At this stage, it can be extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming, or even impossible, to work around those rights. However, it is often the case that, with knowledge of those rights and/or limitations from the outset, a simple tweak early in the process can easily resolve the issue or, on occasions, show that the product/service is unlikely to be worth pursuing. Either way, spending a little bit of time and money conducting a freedom to operate (FTO) search at the beginning can result in significant savings in the long term. A proper FTO search looks beyond the bare patent, design and trade mark rights as they exist on the register. By keeping a few things in mind, you can bring a higher degree of sophistication to the analysis. SKIPPING SOPHISTICATED FREEDOM TO OPERATE SEARCHES 5 First, there is often a difference between what a judge finds is an infringement at the end of litigation and what a rights holder believes is worth litigating. Ideally, your products and services should be configured so that they are as far away from others’ IP rights as possible to minimise the risk of you

14 | wrays.com.au

As granted patents, registered designs and trade marks are often found to be invalid, you need to invest the time and money in preparing/obtaining good quality IP rights. Applications need to be drafted by a professional that you trust. It is an unfortunate reality that patents for great inventions are frequently invalidated, or too easy to work around, due to technical problems with the way the patent is drafted. If an IP asset is worth registering, it is worth preparing the materials required to obtain those rights with care and precision. When acquiring IP rights from a third party – for example, where merging with a business with an extensive IP portfolio, or partnering with another Third, if there really is no way around an IP right, you can always approach the rights holder to ask for an assignment or licence. The owner may well have little interest in those rights anymore and gladly allow you to use them. It is always preferable to make an approach before you start your commercial activities, as having the ability to just “walk away” from the deal will allow you to drive a harder bargain than if you are facing potential infringement proceedings. It is also useful to come to negotiations forearmed with possible invalidity arguments as these can often be used as leverage to secure a licence at a lower cost. ASSUMING ALL IP RIGHTS ARE VALID (AND CREATED EQUAL) 6 having to defend infringement proceedings. Successfully defending infringement proceedings is seldom preferable to avoiding litigation in the first place. Reaching the best solution often involves a creative collaboration between technical and legal staff. Second, finding relevant IP rights is not necessarily a roadblock for your project. Registered IP rights are often broader than is allowable. If you find IP rights cover a product or service which is important for your business, invest the time to assess the validity of those rights. You may find that you can challenge and limit, or even invalidate, those rights, thereby clearing your way.

organisation to take advantage of their IP, it is crucial to do due diligence around the validity and scope of those patent rights. If you fail to do so, you may well find that you have paid a lot of money for rights that are effectively worthless.

FAILING TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION 7

While confidentiality agreements are important, in practice they are difficult to enforce against former employees. It can be difficult to prove that an employee used or disclosed specific information, and that they derived the information from your business. It is also difficult to prove that information is confidential. It is not enough to baldly assert that the business considers the information confidential. Unless the information is explicitly cited in a confidentiality agreement, you will need to satisfy a court both that the information has the necessary quality of confidentiality and that the employee knew that it was confidential. RESTRICT ACCESS TO SENSITIVE DATA; ENCRYPT FILES AND USE READ-ONLY PERMISSIONS Rather than suing a former employee to try to plug a confidentiality leak, it is better to stop leaks happening in the first place. There are many ways to stop employees leaving the business you’re your confidential information. Limit their access to confidential information and encrypt sensitive information so only authorised employees can view it. Where an employee requires access, consider restricting the access to only a portion of the information, so they don’t see the complete picture. Evidence that your business has adopted such measures to protect confidential information will also assist in persuading a court that the information is in fact, valuable and confidential, and that your (ex) employees were aware of this. CUT OFF ACCESS IMMEDIATELY WHEN EMPLOYEES RESIGN It is of course impossible to stop people leaving the business with information retained in their head. But the information retained may be considerably less extensive than what they can download and take with them on a hard drive. Where possible, only allow employees to read,

15 | wrays.com.au

not download or copy, confidential information so you can be confident that the business retains the only version of the information. You can also discourage employees from logging into personal email accounts from work devices. If an employee resigns, take steps to immediately cut off their access to sensitive information. It may also be appropriate to forensically review their email account and work-provided electronic devices and place that employee on a period of gardening leave to further restrict their access to confidential information. Once again, adopting such practices is useful if it becomes necessary to persuade a court that your business is serious about how the protection of its confidential information.

KEY TAKEAWAY

For General Counsel, intellectual property is more than just a legal consideration, it’s a cornerstone of business strategy. The mistakes outlined above are rarely the result of negligence; they happen because IP is often treated reactively, addressed only after a dispute arises or a competitor moves in. By then, it’s often too late. A forward-thinking approach transforms IP from a defensive shield into a powerful growth driver. Ultimately, IP is at its most valuable when it’s managed deliberately, systematically, and with a commercial lens. For General Counsel, this isn’t just about avoiding pitfalls, it’s about positioning IP as a central lever of innovation, competitiveness, and long-term business success. By investing time and resources in a disciplined IP strategy today, you safeguard your company’s most critical assets for tomorrow.

Andrew Goatcher Principal

16 | wrays.com.au

A WIN FOR COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS IN AUSTRALIA ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES V. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FCAFC 131

A TURNING POINT FOR SOFTWARE PATENTS IN AUSTRALIA The patentability of computer implemented inventions (CIIs) in Australia has long been obscured in uncertainty. A complex raft of legal precedents has left patent applicants without clear guidance on how to protect inventions involving software and digital technologies. This uncertainty has now been resolved with the Federal Court Appeal decision in Aristocrat Technologies v. Commissioner of Patents FCAFC 131 which has significantly clarified the position, resetting the “manner of manufacture” test as it applies to CIIs. KEY TAKEAWAY: A WIN FOR PRACTICAL INNOVATION In a major win for Aristocrat, the Court allowed its appeal and ruled that the claims in four innovation patents relating to electronic gaming machines (EGMs) do indeed constitute a “manner of manufacture” under section 18(1A)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). In reaching this conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that the central test for determining whether an invention qualifies as a manner of manufacture is whether it brings about an artificially created state of affairs with economic utility – a test grounded in the seminal High Court decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67 (NRDC). Crucially, the Full Court rejected the restrictive and mechanical “two-step” approach previously applied to CIIs, which had required courts to first identify the substance of the invention and then determine whether it involved a technical contribution. That approach, criticised by all six judges in the split High Court decision on Aristocrat in 2022, was found to be unnecessarily complicated and inconsistent with established principles. WHAT THE DECISION MEANS FOR PATENT APPLICANTS For patent applicants, this means that if the hardware and software are combined to produce observable, practical and economically significant results, then the use of conventional computer technology does not preclude an invention from being patentable.

The decision affirms that simple schemes or abstract ideas executed on conventional computer technology remain ineligible for patent protection, but inventions where the computer technology is necessary to achieve results will be of patentable subject matter, such as Aristocrat’s EGMs in question. These EGMs combine hardware displays, feature games, credit metres, and configurable symbols to create dynamic gameplay and prizes. The Courts approach also resolves the anomaly where a mechanical invention (e.g. an EGM with mechanical reels) would be considered patentable whereas a computerised invention (having software generated reels) would not, despite having the same artificial effect/utility. This finding aligns with the goals of the Patents Act to encourage invention and innovation with emerging technologies [134]. DRAWING THE LINE: PATENTABLE VS NON PATENTABLE CIIS This decision provides an innovation-friendly framework on patentable subject matter of CIIs, characterising the difference [131]: between Not Patentable: CIIs that describe “ an abstract idea manipulated on a computer ”. Examples include: Asset protection schemes ( Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120) Securities indices ( Research Affiliates [2014] FCAFC 150) Competency assessments ( RPL Central [2015] FCAFC 177) Information display systems ( Encompass [2019] FCAFC 161) Digital marketing methods ( Rokt [2020] FCAFC 86) Patentable: CIIs where “an abstract idea is implemented on a computer in a way that creates an artificial state of affairs and produces a useful result”. Examples include: Curve-drawing algorithms ( IBM v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218) Chinese character retrieval ( CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260)

19 | wrays.com.au

Signal-based access control ( UbiPark v TMA Capital [2023] FCA 885) Scanning methods in radios ( Motorola v Hytera [2022] FCA 1585) A HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS The Court affirms that the proper method for assessing the patentability of the claims is to characterise the claim’s integers as viewed as a whole, including the combination of both inventive and non-inventive elements. This is in contrast to giving undue weight to the inventive aspects of the claim over the non-inventive aspects, while also conferring due recognition to physical elements of the claim that are not inventive but are essential to the invention’s operation. IMPLICATIONS FOR TECH-FOCUSED INDUSTRIES This decision marks a significant shift towards a more innovation friendly approach to software patents in Australia. It provides much-needed clarity and confidence for patent applicants in technology-driven sectors such as gaming, fintech, and digital platforms, industries where the integration of hardware and software is central to commercial success. Applicants can now proceed with greater assurance that their inventions will be assessed on their practical and technical merits, not dismissed merely because they rely on conventional computing components. CONCLUSION Aristocrat signals a major evolution in Australian patent law concerning computer-implemented inventions. By realigning the “manner of manufacture” test with established principles and focusing on economic utility and practical effect, the Full Court has restored balance and predictability to an area long fraught with legal uncertainty. For innovators working at the intersection of software and hardware, this decision is a welcome development, and a reminder that, in Australia, functionality and utility still matter most.

Dr Phil Burns Principal

Scott Vilé Principal

20 | wrays.com.au

PATENTS IN ORBIT Global IP Trends in the New Space Race

22 | wrays.com.au

A report published by the European Patent Office, [4] shows patent filings in space-related sectors grew four-fold from approximately 500 patent families[5] in 2007 to over 2,000 in 2017. More recent data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reveals even stronger growth: From 2000 to 2023, global patent families in space technologies exceeded 67,000, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8% overall and 15% from 2010 to 2023[6]. This acceleration reflects the rise of private companies and intensified international competition. American patent applicants are also active internationally, accounting for around 32% of European patent filings in this sector.[7] Traditional Aerospace vs. Emerging Players For decades, patent activity in the U.S. space sector was dominated by aerospace companies who focused on propulsion, spacecraft control, and structural technologies.[8]

THE COMMERCIAL SPACE BOOM The global space sector is skyrocketing, experiencing explosive growth as a second space race unfolds. Once dominated by government-led missions, the modern space race is now fuelled by private enterprise, venture capital, and bold innovation. Space is now big business with estimates the global space sector globally is valued at a record $613 billion in 2024, and projections it could exceed US$1 trillion by 2040[1], according to Morgan Stanley. Behind this surge lies an equally aggressive race to protect intellectual property (IP). The global patent filing activity in the field of space-related technologies (or cosmonautics) reveals a rapid rise in commercialisation activity in this domain since 2010, growing from a base of approximately 200 new patent family filings each year between 1990 and 2010, and a rapid rise of approximately 2200 patent filings per year between 2010 and 2017. CONTENDER Australia is not taking a back seat in this race. With its remote geographic location, clear skies for launches, highly educated workforce, and open regulatory regime, Australia holds key comparative advantages that position it favourably for space-related investment.[2] In response, the Australian government has established a Space Infrastructure Fund and set an ambitious target aimed at building an Australian space industry worth A$12 billion per annum by 2030.[3] While Australia still lags global leaders in patent filings, its trajectory is upward, and its startups are making bold moves on the global stage. AUSTRALIA’S LAUNCHPAD: A RISING WHO’S LEADING THE INNOVATION SPACE RACE? United States: Still the Innovation Powerhouse Backed by the world’s largest civil space budget (over US$20 billion annually), the United States continues to lead global space patent activity.

Top players included:

Boeing Lockheed Martin Honeywell Raytheon Aerojet Rocketdyne

The EPO report predates the prominence of players like SpaceX and Blue Origin, but updated analysis[7]from the US Patent and Trade Mark Office and our own analysis of the cosmonautics subject matter classification (IPC and CPC code B64G) and selected sub-categories[9] shows the US patent landscape continues to grow, with 17,000 patent families from 2000 to 2023. Recent trends do indicate a minor slowdown, with a CAGR of 1.4% from 2000–2019 dropping to – 1.1% from 2020–2023, however, small businesses, universities, and nonprofit organisations now account for over 40% of US space patents, up from historical levels, with 16% receiving federal support – seven times the national average[10].

23 | wrays.com.au

The is unmistakeable: between 2003 and 2023, the number of US patent applications grew by 144%. By comparison, the overall number of patent applications filed at the USPTO between 2003 and 2023 increased by only 37%[11]. longer-term trend, however,

China: Volume Leader, Global Reach Since 2011, China has emerged as the strongest challenger to US leadership. In just a few years, China’s filings have risen steeply, and by 2018, Chinese entities accounted for over half of global space patent families. From 2000 to 2023, China led with over 38,000 patent families, boasting a growth from 33.3% of patent filings between 2000–2019 increasing to 17.6% between 2020– 2023. However, about 95% of these filings are submitted only domestically, with only about 5% of Chinese-origin patents are filed abroad, indicating that while China dominates in sheer volume, its filings remain largely confined within its national borders [12], limiting global influence. Growth stems largely from universities and research institutes, often transferring rights to state-owned enterprises like the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC). Fastest-growing areas of Chinese patent activity includes propulsion, automation and robotics, and spacecraft structures.[13] China’s patent surge in space-related patenting reflects its determination to establish technological leadership across key domains of the sector. Yet, the largely domestic focus of its patent filings raises questions about translation of this innovation into international impact. As China internationalises its IP strategy, it could reshape the global space innovation landscape of space innovation over the coming decade.

Emerging Players We are now seeing an important emerging trend, notably the diversification beyond aerospace primes, with increased filings in telecommunications and satellite technologies. This shift underscores the growing role of communications and satellite operators driving technological development in the space sector.

Key newer entrants include:

Echostar Corp Viasat

Huawei Ericsson

Earlier EPO findings emphasised propulsion technologies as the clear leader in patenting activity, but our current data highlights a shift in the innovation landscape. toward automation and circularity (e.g., reusable systems), with a 15% CAGR from 2000–2023, accelerating post-2014. Factors like expanding satellite constellations, increasing demand for secure and high-bandwidth communications, and integration with terrestrial systems are driving this surge in intellectual property activity.

24 | wrays.com.au

Australia: The Emerging Player? Compared to global leaders, Australia does not yet rank as a major player in the space patent landscape. Key jurisdictions represented in European patent filings[14] include the United States, China, Japan, Germany, France, South Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom, with Australia absent from top lists. European filings to date show no significant Australian contributions, suggesting innovations may occur through collaborations and joint projects (e.g., with ESA or NASA), or remain in early stages.[15] Australia’s space industry may be smaller than the U.S, only having a dedicated Space Agency since 2018, yet it is growing fast. Our own internal analysis[16] of patent applications in Australia reveals an upward trajectory in Australian space related filings between 2013 and 2023. These statistics for Australian patent filings are characterised by year-to-year volatility, including periods of both acceleration and decline, potentially indicating some initial uncertainty and growing pains as corporate players extend their operations into the fledgling Australian space industry. From 2000 to 2023, Australia recorded 504 patent families, with a CAGR of 7.2% from 2000–2019 but a decline of -8.5% from 2020– 2023.

This pattern suggests that while sentiment toward Australia as a base for space-related innovation is broadly positive, the country has not yet achieved consistent recognition as a critical jurisdiction for intellectual property protection in the global space sector. Leading applicants in Australia are predominantly overseas entities, particularly from the USA, indicating a recognition of Australia’s strategic advantages in securing rights within the Australian patent system, whether due to its geographic position, or its growing space infrastructure and workforce. This recognition has not yet been mirrored across other global space powers, whose presence in Australian filings remains comparatively limited which could indicate the significance of formal international partnerships such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) (2005); the Australia-US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty (2007); and the AUKUS security partnership (2021).

Resident filings (e.g. by Australian SMEs or universities) are smaller but growing, with a 9.8% increase in resident applications from 2003 to 2023, potentially including space technologies like lightweight materials or optical systems. Australian organisations like CSIRO (45 filings in 2017) and universities such as University of Queensland contribute to space innovations, particularly in photonics and quantum technologies for satellite sensing.

Overall patent filings in Australia decreased 3.3% to 30,478 in 2024, but transport-related patents (potentially overlapping with space) grew 12.8– 13%, driven by areas like energy storage. Homegrown startups like Fleet Space Technologies hold 82 global patents (78% active as of 2025), focusing on satellite IoT and communications.

25 | wrays.com.au

The pace of innovation in space technologies shows no signs of slowing, with patent trends over the next decade are likely to mirror the surging private investment in the sector. Private companies and Australian startups are advancing research in propulsion, autonomous satellites, and advanced materials, heralding a new wave of patent activity. As private funding grows and the sector broadens beyond traditional aerospace – toward sustainable propulsion, automation, and communications – we anticipate increased activity and increasing diversity in technology areas. FUTURE TRENDS: WHERE INNOVATION IS HEADED Satellite On-Orbit Maintenance: Patents in autonomous docking, repair robots, and refuelling technologies will likely spike, as companies look to extend the lifespan of expensive satellite assets. Asteroid Mining and Resource Extraction: Intellectual property covering extraction methods, robotic mining, and material processing in microgravity could become a key competitive differentiator. In-Space Manufacturing: 3D printing and modular assembly in orbit are attracting attention, with patents expected in both machinery design and novel manufacturing processes. Orbital Debris Mitigation: With increasing satellite congestion, technologies for debris tracking, removal, and collision avoidance are poised to see rising patent activity. Australia’s strategic location, supportive space policies, and growing space ecosystem make it an attractive destination for foreign R&D investment. As international companies seek to file patents closer to emerging markets and collaborate with local universities and SMEs, Australia could see a surge in co-filed or PCT-based patent applications. This trend positions the country not only as a contributor to global space innovation but also as a hub for cross-border IP collaboration. AUSTRALIA’S GROWING ROLE Servicing and Emerging Technology Areas to Watch

FINAL THOUGHTS AND TIPS

With the US leading but showing recent slowdowns, China surging in volume (though domestically focused), and Australia’s profile rising amid volatility, strategic patenting offers a competitive edge.

IP Takeaways for Innovators:

Monitor trends like the shift to sustainable and automated technologies. Leverage high-allowance jurisdictions for efficient protection. Consider international filings to maximise global reach. In this competitive and rapidly evolving industry, informed and strategic IP management ensures that your innovations remain protected while your company reaches for the stars. [2] Australian Space Agency, Advancing space — Communications technologies and services — Roadmap 2021 – 2030, p. 4. [3] Australian Communications and Media Authority, Market study — Australian space sector, p. 2. [4] European Patent Office, Cosmonautics — The development of space-related technologies in terms of patent activity. [EPO: Cosmonautics] Ibid, p. 14. [5] European Patent Office, Cosmonautics — The development of space-related technologies in terms of patent activity. [EPO: Cosmonautics] [6] https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo technology-trends-technical-annex-future-of transportation-in-space/en/global-patent trends.html [1] Ibid.

[7] EPO: Cosmonautics; Ibid, pp. 18–21.

[8] EPO: Cosmonautics; Ibid, pp. 29–31.

26 | wrays.com.au