Due to the ever-shifting nature of AI and software inventions, understanding how different jurisdictions frame “technical contribution” is a key component in preparing computer-implemented invention (CII) and artificial intelligence (AI) patent applications.
Australia – Aristocrat Decision
In September 2025, Australia’s Full Federal Court unanimously held that the claims in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents satisfy the “manner of manufacture” threshold required for patent-eligible subject matter [1]. The Court reaffirmed that computer-implemented inventions that deliver a distinct technical effect are within the realm of patentability.
The Australian “manner of manufacture” test focuses on the substance of an invention, and how it contributes to the art. Whilst previous Aristocrat decisions included a stalemate between judges on characterisation of the invention, this new unanimous decision provides a more appropriate test (referred to as the “allowing reasons” in reference to the previous High Court decision), which considers whether, when properly characterised (i.e. in view of the patent specification), the subject matter that is alleged to be patentable is:
- an abstract idea, manipulated on a computer (unpatentable); or
- an abstract idea, implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result (patentable).
IP Australia has since adapted its examination practice in light of this decision, and has also sought leave to appeal the decision [2].
Some may consider this judgement long overdue, particularly given the uptick in AI and CI inventions recently, with the previous approach at IP Australia casting uncertainty on such filings there due to the “usefulness” requirement in Australian patent practice.
Singapore – Guidance Provided by IPOS
Whilst we have not seen similar CII or AI patentability cases decided in the Singapore courts, in October 2024 the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) took a proactive step in releasing supplemental guidance [3] to its Patent Examination Guidelines specifically for CII and AI-related filings.
The guidance sets out the test Examiners should apply when determining if an AI patent claim defines an invention in Singapore, and includes 9 detailed examples of patentable or unpatentable subject matter. This provides a useful scale on which to judge patent claims for a particular invention, or to aid in the drafting of patent claims.
Singapore’s framework follows the UK Aerotel/Macrossan test, and instructs Examiners to:
- Properly construe the claim and identify the actual contribution of the invention.
- Determine whether that contribution falls exclusively within excluded subject matter (e.g., pure mathematical methods, business methods, presentation of information).
- Assess whether the software or AI-driven contribution solves a specific technical problem and interacts materially with computer hardware.
This test stresses that an AI algorithm merely running on generic hardware does not, by itself, confer patentability, particularly if the actual contribution falls solely within non-patentable subject matter.
Comparison – Australia Vs Singapore Approach
The recent Australian decision in Aristocrat appears to align Australia with other jurisdictions, and reaffirms the need to frame an invention around a concrete technical effect, which may allow an invention to meet the somewhat unique “usefulness” requirement of the manner of manufacture test in Australia.
As part of this, thought should be given to highlighting how an invention interacts materially with hardware or system architectures, and claim elements should be linked to the specific problem solved - in particular avoiding generic business or abstract language.
Both Australia and Singapore reject patents on abstract ideas, insisting on a technical contribution, yet their analysis differs, particularly given the specific “usefulness” requirement in Australia.
Despite different routes, both frameworks should in theory converge on allowing AI inventions that:
- Solve a specific, technical problem.
- Demonstrate a clear causal link between software steps and that problem.
- Involve more than just generic computing resources.
Analysis
In analysing the Aristocrat claims from a Singapore patentability perspective, two important considerations are required:
- The key claims in the Aristocrat decisions are part of four innovation patents (another, now mostly defunct quirk of the Australian patent landscape akin to a “petty patent”) and not subject to inventive step analysis.
- Section 13 of the Singapore Act specifically excludes schemes, rules or methods for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, and the Aristocrat claims all relate to gaming machines.
From a hypothetical standpoint, with reference to the IPOS guidelines, the Aristocrat claims in each of the innovation patents ‘967, ‘629, ‘097 and ‘098 under question do appear to include a number of hardware features, and details of how these features interact. The claims also appear to address specific problems which, if determined to be technical in nature, and if the claimed contributions are found to fall outside the excluded subject matter provisions, may render the various claims acceptable in Singapore, at least from a subject matter perspective.
Claim 1 of the Aristocrat ‘967 patent was the focus of analysis in the Aristocrat decision. Considering this claim from a Singapore perspective:
Claim 1 of AU 2016101967 recites (claim integers numbered in line with the decision):
[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.
Whilst the IPOS guidance is aimed at AI inventions, we can follow the Aerotel/Macrossan test, and use the IPOS guidance approach to analyse the ‘967 Aristocrat claim. The approach requires three steps:
i) Construe the claim
The ‘967 claim is directed to a gaming machine, comprising a number of hardware mechanisms including a credit input mechanism [1.2] and game play mechanism [1.5]. The game controller [1.6] stores program code, and would be construed as equivalent to a computer program being executed on a computer.
ii) Identify the actual contribution
The actual contribution appears to be in the triggering of a feature game [1.10] within a base game as a result of a trigger event. The triggering results in retaining or replacing symbols on the display, and displaying selected symbols at [1.11] (i.e. “configurable symbols”).
iii) Does the actual contribution fall solely within non-patentable subject matter?
In the ‘967 patent, the actual contribution appears to be in the triggering of one or more features during gameplay. As a result, it may be considered that the actual contribution is not solely in “schemes, rules or methods for … playing a game”, but is instead in the triggering of various integers of the game machine to trigger a second state (i.e. trigger a feature game from a base game). In practice this may be considered an invention for subject matter eligibility purposes in Singapore if it can be argued that this contribution does not lie solely in a method for playing a game.
The characterisation under Singapore practice effectively requires the analysis of only the actual contribution of the claim. This contrasts with the Aristocrat decision in Australia, which appears to take a more holistic view on characterisation of the invention, taking into account all integers of the claim, including the features that are not novel.
Nevertheless, both routes try to identify the real contribution of the claim, and judge this on its merits. Therefore, the Aristocrat decision appears to align CII and AI invention practice in Australia with other major jurisdictions, including Singapore.
Future Issues – Disclosure Requirements?
As a final point, providing ample technical disclosure around datasets, hardware configurations, and performance metrics can also help to satisfy support and disclosure requirements in Singapore, for example under S25(4) of the Singapore Patents Act, requiring the disclosure to be in a manner which is “clear and complete for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art” [4].
Insufficiency of disclosure was an issue decided on by the courts in Singapore in the not too distant past in the Element Six decision [5] and the IPOS guidance on AI inventions provides input on complete disclosure, indicating that in some instances the provision of an AI training dataset may be warranted. In practice this could be practically and commercially difficult, particularly when dealing with proprietary structured data, sensitive personal information, or large quantities of unstructured data (such as image and video libraries).
Whilst a similar finding would likely be made in Australia regarding insufficiency, this also raises a question regarding the “best method” of performing the invention requirement in Australia. This requirement is yet another somewhat unique aspect of Australian patent practice, and could result in issues for CII and AI inventions in a way unrelated to the “manner of manufacture” issue decided on in Aristocrat. For example, in some instances it may be necessary to disclosure significant quantities of data, including model training datasets, to meet the best method requirement in Australia when preparing AI based patent applications.
To mitigate these challenges, applicants may instead provide representative samples of a dataset, or disclose specific characteristics of the relevant data (such as statistical distributions, pre-processing methods, correlation between input and output parameters, etc.) to ensure the technical effect remains reproducible without the need for a full data dump.
Support for CII and AI Inventions
Navigating patent law for computer-implemented and AI inventions can be complex. Our experienced patent attorneys are well equipped to guide you through the nuances of this evolving area. For strategic advice or filing support, please feel free to contact us directly.
[4] https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PA1994?ProvIds=P15-#pr25- S25(4)
/Passle/6130aaa9400fb30e400b709a/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-02-09-26-19-809-69806dbb9d5715f0d30d6c91.jpg)
/Passle/6130aaa9400fb30e400b709a/MediaLibrary/Images/2026-01-30-11-04-54-145-697c9056151bcc6789223199.png)
/Passle/6130aaa9400fb30e400b709a/SearchServiceImages/2026-01-30-09-00-59-872-697c734bec17b0ada5d28e3c.jpg)