Telstra Corporation Limited v Amazon.com, Inc. 2011 APO 28 (9 May 2011)

For over a decade, the infamous Amazon ‘1-click’ ordering patent has courted controversy, and it continues to do so. Its US incarnation, patent no. 5,960,411, was subjected to re-examination following a request filed by New Zealander Peter Calveley, but survived with only a slight narrowing to the scope of its claims. Its Canadian counterpart, application no. 2,246,933, was rejected by the Patent Appeal Board on the ground that it did not claim legitimate statutory subject matter, however Amazon successfully appealed this decision in the Federal Court of Canada (see
Business Methods Patentable (Again) in Canada).
Despite widespread disbelief and disgruntlement, felt particularly by section of the software development community, the
novelty and nonobviousness (i.e.
inventive step) of the ‘1-click’ ordering invention has yet to be successfully challenged. Even a US$10,000 ‘bounty’, to be awarded to anybody bringing forward prior art that would invalidate the Amazon claims, failed to produce a significant challenge to the patent.
While the main battleground has been North America, for the last eight years a dispute has been quietly simmering away here in Australia over the local counterpart to the ‘1-click’ ordering patent. Australian application no 94779/98 resulted from the national phase of Amazon’s international patent application no. PCT/US1998/018926, filed on 10 September 1998, and claiming priority from earlier US applications filed on 12 September 1997 and 23 March 1998. The application passed examination, and was advertised accepted on 19 June 2003 under the prospective Australian patent no. 762175.
On 19 September 2003, Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) filed a Notice of Opposition to the grant of patent no. 762175. Thus began an opposition proceeding that would eventually last for nearly eight years. A decision in the opposition finally issued on 9 May 2011.
While Telstra has achieved some small level of success – Hearing Officer
Ed Knock finding claim 1, 2 and 4 to 61 (out of 141 claims in total) to be invalid – the claims that have survived the Australian opposition are, to our knowledge, the broadest of any of the ‘1-click’ patent family members. For all practical purposes, after years of proceedings and (no doubt) tens of thousands of dollars in costs (at least), Telstra has gained no meaningful freedom-to-operate out of the opposition.