IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

IP

by

Aristocrat’s Jackpot: Full Court Revives Gaming Machine Patents

When does a slot machine cross the line from an abstract idea to a patentable invention?

After years of litigation, remittals, and even a 3–3 deadlock in the High Court, the Full Federal Court has finally tipped the balance in Aristocrat’s favour.

🎰 The Long Spin

Aristocrat has been fighting since 2018 to keep its patents over electronic gaming machines (EGMs) with “configurable symbols” — feature games that change play dynamics and prize allocation. The Commissioner argued these were just abstract rules of a game dressed up in software. Aristocrat said they were genuine machines of a particular construction that yielded a new and useful result.

The case bounced through:

  • Delegate (2018): patents revoked.

  • Burley J (2020): Aristocrat wins.

  • Full Court (2021): Aristocrat loses (majority invents “advance in computer technology” test).

  • High Court (2022): split 3–3, affirming the Full Court’s result by default under Judiciary Act s 23(2)(a).

  • Remittal (2024): Burley J reluctantly applies Full Court reasoning against Aristocrat.

Cue the latest appeal.

⚖️ The Precedent Puzzle

The Full Court (Beach, Rofe & Jackman JJ) confronted a thorny problem: should it stick to its own 2021 reasoning when the High Court had unanimously rejected that reasoning, even though no majority emerged?

The answer: No.

  • Only majority or unanimous High Court views are binding.

  • But the High Court’s unanimous criticism provided a “compelling reason” to abandon the earlier Full Court approach.

  • The Court found “constructive error” — not blaming Burley J, but recognising the law had to move on.

🖥️ Rethinking “Manner of Manufacture”

The Court reframed the test for computer-implemented inventions:

  • Not patentable: an abstract idea manipulated on a computer.

  • Patentable: an abstract idea implemented on a computer in a way that creates an artificial state of affairs and useful result.

Applying this, Aristocrat’s claim 1 was patentable — and by extension, so were the dependent claims across its four patents. The EGMs weren’t just abstract gaming rules. They were machines, purpose-built to operate in a particular way.

💡 Why It Matters

  • For patentees: This revives hope for computer-implemented inventions beyond “pure software” where technical implementation creates a new device or process.

  • For examiners: IP Australia may need to recalibrate examination practice on software-related patents — the “advance in computer technology” yardstick is gone.

  • For practitioners: This is a case study in how precedent, process, and patents collide. The High Court’s split didn’t end the story — it forced the Full Court to resolve it.

🚀 Takeaway

The Full Court has effectively reset the slot reels. Aristocrat’s EGMs are back in play, and the scope of patentable computer-implemented inventions in Australia looks a little brighter.

Sometimes the house doesn’t win.

by

Copy That, Part 10 – Copyright Myths Busted: Top Misunderstandings

The most dangerous thing about copyright? What people think they know.

Myths abound, and they can land creators and businesses in hot water. Let’s bust a few of the biggest.

Myth 1: “If it’s on the internet, it’s free to use.”

Nope. Online doesn’t mean ownerless. Copyright applies the moment a work is created and uploaded.

Myth 2: “I gave credit, so I can use it.”

Attribution is important, but it’s not a substitute for permission. Unless a licence or exception applies, copying is still infringement.

Myth 3: “I changed it, so it’s mine.”

Derivative works—like remixes, adaptations, and mash-ups—still require permission from the original copyright owner.

Myth 4: “It’s educational, so it’s fine.”

Education has some specific statutory licences and exceptions, but they’re limited and tightly regulated. “I used it in class” doesn’t automatically mean fair dealing.

Myth 5: “I bought it, so I own the copyright.”

Buying a book, CD, or digital download gives you the copy—not the underlying rights. Only the copyright owner controls reproduction, adaptation, and distribution.

Myth 6: “The 10% rule – if I change 10%, I’m safe.”

There’s no such thing. Courts look at whether a substantial part of the original work has been copied, not a percentage. Even a small portion can infringe if it captures the essence of the work.

Myth 7: “I added a little to the program, so now we both own it.”

Not true. Adding a minor change or tweak to software (or any work) doesn’t automatically give you joint ownership. You might own the copyright in your new contribution, but the original creator still owns their part—and you can’t exploit the combined work without permission.

IP Mojo tip: get advice, not assumptions

Relying on myths is a shortcut to infringement. When in doubt, check the licence terms, rely on fair dealing only where it clearly applies, or get legal advice.

Series Wrap-Up: Copy That

Over 10 instalments, we’ve explored the world of copyright in Australia—what it protects, who owns it, how long it lasts, when you can use someone else’s work, and how to share and enforce your own. Along the way, we’ve debunked myths, unpacked rights, and hopefully shown that copyright isn’t just a legal technicality—it’s a practical toolkit for protecting creativity and powering business.

If there’s one takeaway, it’s this: don’t rely on assumptions. Copyright law is full of nuance. A quick check, a clear agreement, or a simple licence can save years of disputes.

👉 That’s a wrap for Copy That: The IP Mojo Guide to Copyright in Australia.

But IP Mojo isn’t stopping here. Stay tuned for our next series, where we’ll dive into another corner of intellectual property and digital law—because your ideas, brands, and content deserve more than protection. They deserve strategy.

Follow along at IP Mojo for what’s next.

by

Copy That, Part 9 – International Protection: Does My Copyright Travel?

Copyright doesn’t stop at the border. Thanks to international treaties, Australian works enjoy protection in most countries around the world.

But while copyright travels, enforcing it can be another story.

The Berne Convention

Australia is a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which has over 180 signatories. The convention requires each member country to give works from other member countries the same copyright protection they give their own.

In practice:

  • An Australian author’s novel is protected in France, the US, Japan, and most other places automatically.

  • No need to register abroad (though some countries, like the US, still require local registration before suing).

Enforcing overseas rights

While protection exists automatically, enforcement depends on local courts and procedures. That means:

  • You may need local lawyers and expertise.

  • Remedies differ country to country.

  • Cultural and practical considerations can affect how disputes play out.

Beyond Berne

Australia is also part of other agreements, including the WIPO Copyright Treaty and various free trade agreements, which extend and harmonise protections.

IP Mojo tip: plan internationally

If your work has export potential—books, software, films, brands—consider international contracts, licences, and partnerships to support enforcement, rather than relying on litigation in a distant jurisdiction.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 10 – Copyright Myths Busted: Top Misunderstandings

by

When Copying Doesn’t Pay: Lift Shop v Next Level Goes All the Way Up

What happens when copyright infringement is admitted but the “big ticket” remedies fall away?

The recent battle between residential lift rivals Lift Shop and Next Level Elevators shows how hard it can be to turn technical wins into commercial victories.

The Backstory

Lift Shop and Next Level are fierce competitors in the Australian residential lift market. The dispute began when a Lift Shop quotation template found its way into Next Level’s hands in late 2019. Next Level adapted the template and used it for a few months until April 2020.

Lift Shop sued in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, claiming:

  • Copyright infringement of its quotation documents,

  • Breach of confidence over information allegedly supplied by a former employee, and

  • Misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL in relation to marketing and compliance claims.

Next Level hit back with its own ACL allegations.

The Primary Judgment (June 2024)

Judge Baird found that Next Level (and two of its directors) had indeed infringed Lift Shop’s copyright by using the quotation template. But the win was thin:

  • Additional damages refused: Although infringement was established, the Court declined to award extra damages under s 115(4) of the Copyright Act. The use was brief, not particularly lucrative, and not deemed “flagrant.”

  • Breach of confidence dismissed: Lift Shop couldn’t prove its customer quotes were truly confidential. Some of the same material had even been accessible on its website due to a coding plug-in glitch.

  • ACL claims failed on both sides: The Court wasn’t persuaded that either company had misled consumers about their lifts. Importantly, the judge observed the Court was not an industry regulator.

In short, Lift Shop walked away with a declaration of infringement, but none of the additional relief it wanted.

The Appeal (August 2025)

Unhappy with the limited result, Lift Shop appealed to the Full Court. Its main targets were:

  1. Additional damages – arguing the primary judge was wrong to rule them out before quantum was assessed.

  2. Flagrancy – insisting Next Level’s copying was sufficiently egregious to attract extra damages.

  3. Confidential information – contending the judge erred in finding no breach of confidence and in admitting documents obtained from its website by Next Level’s solicitors.

The Full Court (Feutrill, Neskovcin and Moore JJ) dismissed the appeal:

  • Additional damages can be decided early: The Court confirmed that entitlement to additional damages can be determined at the liability stage, even before election or quantum. Entitlement and quantification are distinct steps. This follows the approach in Redbubble v Hells Angels and Motorola v Hytera.

  • Flagrancy is a matter of degree: The assessment under s 115(4) isn’t binary (“flagrant or not”). It involves weighing the degree of flagrancy along with other factors. The primary judge’s evaluative judgment disclosed no error under House v The King.

  • No confidentiality: A Lift Shop customer quote was not confidential, particularly when similar documents were accessible online. The Court also held that Next Level’s solicitors had not acted improperly in locating documents via the website.

Result: appeal dismissed with costs.

Key Takeaways

  • Copyright is not a lottery ticket. Even where infringement is admitted, additional damages are far from automatic. Courts look for truly egregious, flagrant conduct.

  • Two steps to additional damages. Entitlement and quantification are separate. Entitlement can be determined at the liability stage – and losing that fight early can dramatically weaken a case.

  • Confidentiality must be managed. If “confidential” material can be accessed on a public website, or is too widely circulated, courts are reluctant to protect it.

  • ACL claims cut both ways. Rival traders often throw ACL allegations at each other, but without strong evidence, the Court may simply dismiss both.

Why It Matters

For litigants, this case is a reminder that winning the infringement battle doesn’t always mean winning the war on remedies. Strategic choices about pleading confidentiality, securing websites, and framing additional damages arguments can decide whether a lawsuit delivers real value—or just a hollow declaration.

by

Copy That, Part 8 – Infringement and Enforcement: What Happens When It Goes Wrong

Copyright gives creators powerful rights. But those rights only matter if you can enforce them when someone crosses the line.

What counts as infringement?

Infringement happens when someone does any act reserved for the copyright owner—copying, distributing, adapting, performing—without permission or a valid exception.

Importantly, it doesn’t have to be deliberate. Even unintentional or “I didn’t know” copying can still be infringement.

The test isn’t whether the whole work was copied. Reproducing a “substantial part”—which can mean the heart or essence of the work—is enough.

It’s Not About Quantity

The test for infringement – that is, reproduction of a substantial part – is not about how much was copied.  That is, it is not a quantitative test.

It is actually a qualitative test – it is all about the quality of what was copied.  That is, how important to the whole copyright work is the part that was reproduced?

Indirect liability: authorisation

Australian law also recognises authorisation liability.

If you help or encourage infringement, or fail to take reasonable steps to prevent it (for example, running a platform that hosts pirated content without safeguards), you can be liable too.

Remedies: what can you do?

Rights holders can seek:

  • Injunctions (court orders to stop the infringement)

  • Damages (compensation for loss)

  • Account of profits (handing over profits earned from the infringement)

  • Additional damages (where the infringement is flagrant or in bad faith)

  • Delivery up or destruction of infringing copies

Practical enforcement

Litigation isn’t always the first step. Often, a cease-and-desist letter, a platform takedown request, or a negotiated licence can resolve disputes faster and cheaper.

Enforcement is as much about strategy as law.

Next up in our Copy That series:
Part 9 – International Protection: Does My Copyright Travel?

by

You Can’t Corner “Better”: TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER Survives Opposition

If your brand is built on praise, don’t be surprised when you can’t block others from using it.

That’s the message from a recent Trade Marks Office decision where Better Beer Holdings tried — and failed — to stop TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER from registering.

The Players

  • Better Beer Holdings Pty Ltd – behind the BETTER BEER brand, co-founded by Nick Cogger and comedy duo The Inspired Unemployed (with a strong “tradie vibe” in its marketing).

  • TRADIE Holdings Pty Ltd – owner of the TRADIE brand, here applying for TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER for beers and related beverages.

The Opposition

Better Beer ran three grounds:

  1. s 44 – Deceptively similar to their BETTER BEER marks.

  2. s 60 – Reputation in BETTER BEER would make confusion likely.

  3. s 42(b) – Use would be contrary to law (misleading under the ACL).

Why the Case Failed

1. Section 44 – Not deceptively similar

  • Both marks share “beer” and “better” but have different overall impressions.

  • TRADIE is a prominent lead element; “beer built better” flips the word order and creates its own alliteration.

  • “Better beer” is a laudatory/descriptive phrase — unlikely to be monopolised.

  • No “real tangible danger” of confusion when compared as wholes.

2. Section 60 – Reputation not enough

  • Sales and promotion were significant, but much use was with the ribbon device or in get-up, not the plain words alone.

  • Even assuming reputation in BETTER BEER, it lacked the “communicative freight” to make TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER risky.

  • The “tradie” theme in marketing wasn’t unique enough to bridge the gap — plenty of beer is pitched to tradies.

3. Section 42(b) – ACL claims collapse

  • Once confusion wasn’t made out under s 60, misleading/deceptive conduct couldn’t be made out either.

Decision

  • All grounds failed — TRADIE BEER BUILT BETTER proceeds to registration.

  • Costs awarded against Better Beer.

IP Mojo Takeaways

  1. Descriptive marks are weak weapons – “Better Beer” is the kind of praise any brewer might use. Even with strong sales, it’s hard to exclude others.

  2. Whole-of-mark comparison matters – Prominent extra elements (like “TRADIE”) and re-ordered slogans can be enough to avoid deception.

  3. Reputation needs distinctiveness – It’s the mark’s pull as a badge of origin that counts, not just marketing volume.

  4. Costs risk is real – Lose on all grounds, and you’re paying the other side’s costs.

Citation: Better Beer Holdings Pty Ltd v TRADIE Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 147