Last year I discussed Grant v Commissioner of Patents in which the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the Commissioner of Patents’ decision to refuse to register a patent
application for "a method for structuring a financial transaction, the
purported effect
of which is to protect an individual’s assets (presumably against the
lawful claims of the individual’s creditors)".

An appeal to the Full Federal Court has also now been dismissed.

It said:
It has long been accepted that
"intellectual information", a mathematical algorithm, mere working directions
and a scheme without effect are not patentable. This claim is "intellectual
information", mere working directions and a scheme. It is necessary that there
be some "useful product", some physical phenomenon or effect resulting from the
working of a method for it to be properly the subject of letters patent. That is
missing in this case.

Kim Weatherall comments that the case confirms the trend in Australian case law that …to allow patents for business systems so long as they are implemented via some technical means – eg via computer/database/software.