The decision in CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19[[1]] is one of the most significant Australian Patent Office decisions to consider manner of manufacture following the Full Federal Court’s landmark judgment in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131.[[2]] The case provides a detailed illustration of how the Patent Office currently approaches computer-implemented inventions that combine physical-world data with economic or optimisation-based decision making.
Australian Patent Application No. 2018203749 concerned systems and methods for predicting replacement of wear components on mining equipment, particularly bucket teeth and ground-engaging tools (GET).[[3]] The invention used information about component wear, historical wear rates, replacement costs, downtime costs and operating costs to generate recommendations about when replacement should occur. The stated objective was to reduce subjectivity in maintenance decisions and improve utilisation of wear components while balancing operational and economic considerations.
The Delegate ultimately found that claims directed primarily to cost-based replacement recommendations were not a manner of manufacture, while claims incorporating wear-detection technology were capable of constituting patentable subject matter. That distinction reflects a careful and largely orthodox application of Aristocrat.
The Aristocrat Framework
A notable feature of the decision is the Delegate’s extensive review of modern Australian manner of manufacture authorities, including Research Affiliates,[[4]] RPL Central,[[5]] Encompass,[[6]] Rokt,[[7]] Repipe,[[8]] UbiPark,[[9]] Dei Gratia[[10]] and Aristocrat. The Delegate accepted that Aristocrat represents the current authoritative framework for analysing computer-implemented inventions.
The Delegate emphasised that the first step is to characterise the invention “as a matter of substance”, rather than focusing exclusively on the inventive concept or stripping away conventional claim features. This reflects one of the central teachings of Aristocrat, namely that the invention must be evaluated as a whole and not dissected into inventive and non-inventive components.
The decision adopts the approach articulated in Aristocrat: the inquiry is whether the invention is properly characterised as merely an abstract idea manipulated on a computer, or instead as an implementation that produces an artificial state of affairs, solves a technical problem, or gives rise to a relevant technical effect.
Characterisation of Claim 1
The key manner of manufacture analysis centred on claim 1. The claim was directed to a system comprising an electronic processor configured to:
- determine wear rates;
- determine replacement costs;
- determine downtime costs;
- determine operating costs associated with not replacing components;
- generate replacement recommendations; and
- output those recommendations.
Joy Global argued that the invention addressed a practical physical problem arising from wear of mining-machine components. According to the applicant, the invention enabled improved maintenance management, reduced waste, increased efficiency, and optimised use of physical components operating in harsh mining environments.
The Delegate accepted that the invention related to a real-world industrial context. However, that was not determinative. Following Aristocrat, the question remained whether the substance of the invention resided in technical innovation or merely in a computerised decision-making process.
The Delegate concluded that claim 1 was, in substance, a computerised decision matrix for assessing competing economic considerations and generating maintenance recommendations. The critical inputs were material costs, downtime costs and operating costs. Although information concerning wear was used, the claim did not require any particular means of obtaining that information and was broad enough to include manual measurements entered by an operator.
As characterised by the Delegate, the invention did not solve a technical problem associated with wear detection, sensing technology or computer functionality. Instead, it solved a problem of deciding when replacement should occur after relevant cost information had been gathered. That problem was regarded as fundamentally economic or managerial in nature.
Why Claim 1 Failed
The Delegate identified several reasons why system claim 1 fell on the unpatentable side of the line.
First, the only physical feature expressly required by the claim was a generic electronic processor. The claim did not identify any new hardware, any modification of computer architecture, or any improvement in computer functioning. The processor simply performed ordinary calculations and decision-making functions.
Secondly, the invention did not produce any direct technical effect. The ultimate outcome of the claim was the generation of a recommendation. Although implementation of that recommendation might later improve maintenance practices or machine operation, those consequences depended upon actions taken by human users after the recommendation had been generated. The claim itself did not perform the replacement or alter operation of the mining machine.
Thirdly, the Delegate concluded that the computer was acting merely as an intermediary. The claimed advantage of reducing subjectivity arose because a computer performed calculations consistently. However, that consistency was simply a consequence of ordinary computer operation and not evidence of a technical solution or technological innovation.
For those reasons, the Delegate characterised claim 1 as an unpatentable manipulation of an abstract idea on a computer. Claims 6-13 and 20, which depended on claim 1 and did not materially alter that characterisation, failed for the same reason. Claim 19, directed to a computer-readable medium containing similar instructions, was treated likewise.
Comparison with Aristocrat
The most important question is how this reasoning aligns with Aristocrat.
In many respects, the decision reflects a faithful application of the Full Court’s reasoning. In Aristocrat, the Court found patentable subject matter because the claimed invention was properly characterised as an electronic gaming machine incorporating an interdependent relationship between the game controller, player interface and configurable symbols. The invention produced an altered gaming machine with changed functionality and a different mode of operation.
The Delegate considered that no comparable alteration existed in claim 1. Nothing about the claimed processor was changed. The processor simply executed a set of calculations using conventional computing functionality. Accordingly, the invention resembled the schemes found unpatentable in Research Affiliates, RPL Central, Encompass, Rokt and Repipe more closely than it resembled the integrated technological solution described in Aristocrat.
The Delegate also drew support from Dei Gratia. As in that case, the invention could ultimately influence physical-world outcomes. However, those outcomes resulted from implementation of the recommendation rather than from operation of the claimed invention itself. The physical consequences were therefore regarded as indirect and insufficient to transform the invention into patentable subject matter.
Why Claim 14 Survived
The most interesting feature of the decision is that method claim 14 survived the manner of manufacture challenge.
Claim 14 is directed to a method for predicting replacement of a component included in a mining machine, which required an electronic processor to receive information collected by a wear-detection device representing a current dimension of a component. The claim also involved analysis of that information to determine whether components should be retained, discarded or added to a “used pool” for possible redeployment.
The Delegate regarded this claim as fundamentally different. Unlike claim 1, it was directed to interaction between a wear-detection device and physical machine components. The claim involved obtaining physical measurements concerning the condition of mining equipment and addressed the practical problem of monitoring component wear.
Consequently, the Delegate characterised claim 14 as involving a technical solution to a technical problem external to the computer. The claim therefore qualified as a manner of manufacture, notwithstanding that it ultimately failed on support and enablement grounds.
Conclusion
The significance of CQMS v Joy Global lies in the clear distinction it draws between technological monitoring and economic decision-making. Applying Aristocrat, the Delegate treated wear-detection technology as possessing genuine technical character, but regarded algorithms for balancing downtime costs, operating costs and replacement costs as no more than computerised business or management schemes.
The decision therefore suggests that, in the post-Aristocrat environment, claims directed to sensing, monitoring and control technologies remain comparatively strong candidates for patentability, whereas claims directed primarily to optimisation, scheduling or recommendation engines continue to face substantial manner of manufacture risks. The mere presence of real-world industrial data will not be sufficient if the substance of the invention is ultimately an economic decision performed by a generic computer.
[[1]] CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19 (18 August 2026)
[[2]]Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 (16 September 2025)
[[3]]Patent search – IP Australia
[[4]]Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (10 November 2014)
[[5]] Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (11 December 2015)
[[6]] Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (13 September 2019)
[[7]] Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (21 May 2020)
[[8]] Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223 (8 December 2021)
[[9]] UbiPark Pty Ltd v TMA Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 885 (2 August 2023)
[[10]]Dei Gratia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2024] FCA 1145 (1 October 2024)
