Patent Filing Trends in 2025 Show Impact of AI and Continued Decline in Listed Firm Share

The Australian and New Zealand patent filing landscape in 2025 was marked by the continuation of established market trends alongside a striking new development that has potentially significant implications for both the patent system and the patent attorney profession.  Total standard patent applications filed in Australia decreased marginally by 0.4% to 30,327, representing the third consecutive year of modest decline following a pandemic-era peak.  New Zealand complete applications fell more substantially, by 4.4% to 5,538.  However, these figures were eclipsed by a dramatic surge in provisional patent filings driven by what appears to be widespread use of generative AI tools by self-represented applicants, a phenomenon that resulted in a near-tripling of self-filed provisional applications.

Market share dynamics continued to evolve in ways that present ongoing challenges for firms within the IPH Limited group.  Independent firms collectively surpassed the 50% filing share threshold for the first time, accounting for 51.7% of Australian patent filings, while IPH's share declined further to 32.7%, down from 35.0% in 2024.  Meanwhile, QANTM IP firms maintained relatively stable positioning at 15.6% filing share under private equity ownership.  This continuing divergence reinforces the conclusion that ownership structure alone cannot explain firm performance, with factors including geographic market exposure, client demographics, and strategic positioning all playing significant roles.

Analysis of the 2025 data reveals a market navigating multiple concurrent trends: declining US-originating applications (down 5.1%), growing Chinese filings (up 13.5%), and the emergence of AI as both a potential disruptor and, paradoxically, a possible source of future work for patent attorneys.

Let’s dive in and look at the data.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Annual patent data, Australia, New Zealand, Patent analytics, Patent attorney profession

High Court Backs Aristocrat on Software Patentability – It’s Time for IP Australia to Follow Suit

The High Court of Australia has denied an application by the Commissioner of Patents for special leave to appeal a decision of the Full Federal Court in which claims to a computer-implemented invention (CII), in the form of an electronic gaming machine (EGM), were found to be patent-eligible in Australia.  This brings to an end the long-running dispute over patentability of Aristocrat’s claims, and marks the first time since 1991 (IBM v Commissioner of Patents [1991] FCA 625) that any such dispute with the Commissioner over claims to a CII has concluded with a victory to the applicant/patentee. 

The significance of this outcome cannot be overstated.  In recent years we have seen many cases conclude with claims being found ineligible – i.e. not for a ‘manner of manufacture’ under Australian law – namely Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120, Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150, Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177, Watson v Commissioner of Patents [2019] FCA 1015 (leave to appeal refused in Watson v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCAFC 86), Repipe v Commissioner of Patents [2019] FCA 1956, and Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86.  That is a lot of cases telling us what is not patent-eligible, with absolutely no guidance from the courts on where the boundary might lie on the positive side of patent-eligibility.  Finally, we have a decision of the Full Federal Court that sets out a reasonably clear and concise test which is then applied to eligible claims.  The High Court, in denying the Commissioner’s application for special leave to appeal, stated that the ‘Full Court applied established principles concerning the assessment of manner of manufacture and reached a unanimous and clear conclusion as to characterisation’: Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2026] HCADisp 15, at [2].

Following a rather convoluted passage through the Federal Court, the Full Federal Court and the High Court, back to the primary judge and then to the (differently constituted) Full Court, the final word on patent-eligibility of Aristocrat’s claims is Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131.  In this decision, the Full Court effectively overruled the reasons (though not the orders) of the earlier Full Court, and adopted the affirmative reasons of three High Court judges in the split decision Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (see High Court’s Failure Exposes the Festering Eligibility Sore in Australia’s Patent Laws for more).  Somewhat unusually, this also involved, in a sense, ‘overruling’ the negative reasons of the other High Court judges, in a rare instance of three judges of an inferior court asserting precedence over three judges of a superior court (albeit with the support of three further judges of that superior court).  But that’s just a function of how weird this case became!

In what follows, I will briefly summarise how we got here, where the law stands in view of the Full Court’s 2025 decision, and the High Court’s reasons for refusing special leave to appeal.  Finally, I will review the current examination practice of the Australian Patent Office, and the prospects of change in the wake of the High Court’s decision.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Appeal, Australia, Computer programs, Examination, High Court, Patent Office, Patentable subject matter