Civil Law and Comparative Emerging Intellectual Property Trends in Australia

1. Introduction

Intellectual property (IP) law in Australia is evolving in response to artificial intelligence (AI), digital platforms, biotechnology, pharmaceutical innovation, online counterfeiting, Indigenous cultural heritage, and the international circulation of creative works. Its central purpose is to balance protection for creators and innovators with competition, public access to knowledge, consumer protection, and the broader public interest.

Australian IP law is principally statutory, supplemented by judicial interpretation, equitable principles, and international obligations. Unlike some jurisdictions, Australia does not have a single, comprehensive IP code: different legislation governs copyright, patents, trade marks, designs, plant breeders’ rights, and confidential information.

Recent developments have sharpened several questions: whether AI-related inventions are patentable, how copyright applies to AI training and outputs, how businesses can protect software and digital designs, and whether existing legal frameworks adequately protect Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP). The 2026 policy landscape also includes copyright reforms concerning orphan works and educational uses.

allens.com.au

+1

2. The Australian legal framework

Australia is also influenced by international instruments, including the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

A comparative analysis must nevertheless distinguish Australia’s rules from those of the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada and other jurisdictions. A doctrine such as US fair use, for example, cannot simply be imported into Australian copyright law.

3. Major emerging trends

A. Artificial intelligence and copyright

Generative AI raises questions about the use of protected works to train models, the reproduction of protected expression in outputs, the ownership of AI-assisted creations, and the allocation of liability among developers, deployers and users.

Australia does not have a general US-style fair-use defence. Whether a particular use infringes copyright depends on the statutory rights involved, the conduct undertaken, any applicable exception or licence, and the evidence of copying. There is no universal rule that all AI training is lawful or that all training on protected material is unlawful.

The Australian Government has been consulting on licensing pathways, certainty for AI-generated material, and lower-cost enforcement. In 2026, copyright reform also advanced on orphan works and consistency between online and physical educational environments.

IP Australia

+1

Emerging legal questions include:

Whether training involves reproduction of a substantial part of a protected work.

Whether model outputs reproduce protected expression rather than merely ideas, styles or general characteristics.

Whether a user, developer or commercial platform is responsible for infringement.

How to establish copying where models and training data are held overseas.

Whether licensing schemes can fairly compensate creators while supporting innovation.

B. Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

Australian courts continue to refine the boundary between patentable technical inventions and abstract schemes implemented using a computer. Software, machine-learning methods, digital platforms and automated processes may have commercial value, but commercial usefulness alone does not establish patentability.

The focus is on the claimed invention considered as a whole and on whether it falls within the statutory concept of a manner of manufacture. In 2025, the Full Federal Court’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents was a major development in the treatment of computer-implemented inventions.

allens.com.au

+1

C. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents

Pharmaceutical patent litigation frequently concerns novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, claim construction, infringement and patent-term extensions. These disputes have significant consequences for both innovation incentives and the availability of lower-cost medicines.

A notable recent development is Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 161, concerning whether patents for pharmaceutical formulations qualify for patent-term extension. The Full Court held that the statutory definition at issue did not extend to formulations of a known active pharmaceutical ingredient. The decision illustrates the importance of precise statutory interpretation and the commercial risks of relying on an assumed extension of exclusivity.

allens.com.au

+1

D. Trade marks, branding and consumer confusion

Trade mark disputes increasingly involve online retail, social media, influencer marketing, search advertising, and brands that operate across several product categories. The statutory test for infringement is not identical to the tests for misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off.

A business may therefore face liability under consumer law even where a trade mark infringement claim fails. Reputation, the overall market context, and the impression created for ordinary consumers can be important to the alternative claims.

E. Software, gaming and digital protection

Copyright in software can cover source code and other protected expression, while technological protection measure provisions may restrict certain forms of circumvention and distribution of circumvention tools. The legal analysis must distinguish copyright infringement from circumvention liability: they are related, but not interchangeable.

Digital games, downloadable modifications, firmware, cloud software and online services raise additional questions about licence terms, reverse engineering, evidence preservation, and the division of responsibility between developers and distributors.

F. Designs and virtual products

Product differentiation increasingly depends on user interfaces, icons, screen layouts, animations and other digital features. Australia’s registered-design system has historically focused on the visual appearance of products, making digital-first design a pressure point for reform.

Proposals discussed in 2025–26 included potential protection for virtual designs and graphical user interfaces, partial designs, and changes to support evolving product iterations. These should be understood as reform proposals unless and until enacted and commenced.

allens.com.au

G. Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property

ICIP concerns Indigenous peoples’ interests in traditional knowledge, stories, designs, languages, art, music, ecological knowledge and cultural expressions. Conventional IP law may not adequately recognise collective custodianship, intergenerational responsibilities, sacred or restricted material, or cultural protocols.

Australia’s existing protections are spread across different bodies of law, including copyright, trade marks, designs, native title, cultural heritage rules, contracts and other legal principles. A key emerging issue is the development of more coherent, standalone protection, including against fake Indigenous art and merchandise.

Businesses working with Indigenous artists, communities or knowledge holders should consider informed consent, attribution, appropriate payment, limits on reproduction, control over future uses and clear dispute-resolution processes.

allens.com.au

H. Online counterfeiting and cross-border enforcement

Online marketplaces and social platforms make it easier to distribute counterfeit products and imitate brands across borders. Rights holders must often identify anonymous sellers, preserve digital evidence, determine the relevant jurisdiction and decide whether to proceed against an individual seller, a distributor or a platform.

Practical enforcement increasingly combines trade mark registration, customs measures, platform reporting, consumer-law claims, litigation and carefully designed licensing agreements.

4. Important Australian intellectual property cases

The following cases illustrate the development of Australian IP law across copyright, patents, trade marks, software, biotechnology and remedies.

1. National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252

Area: Patentable subject matter.

Facts and issue: The case concerned a method of applying a chemical treatment to weeds in agricultural fields. The question was whether the process qualified as a patentable invention.

Decision and principle: The High Court adopted a broad approach to the concept of a “manner of manufacture”, asking whether the claimed invention produced an artificially created state of affairs with economic significance.

Significance: The case remains foundational to Australian patent law. It provides a framework for evaluating new technologies, although modern computer-implemented inventions must also be assessed under later statutory and judicial developments.

2. D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35; (2015) 258 CLR 334

Area: Biotechnology and genetic patents.

Facts and issue: Myriad Genetics claimed patent protection relating to isolated genetic material associated with mutations in the BRCA1 gene, which can indicate an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

Decision and principle: The High Court held that the isolated naturally occurring nucleic acid sequences at issue were not patentable merely because they had been isolated from the body. The relevant genetic information was not an invention made by human action in the required sense.

Significance: The case established an important limit on patent claims involving naturally occurring genetic material. It remains significant to biotechnology, genetic testing and the distinction between discoveries and inventions. It does not mean that every invention involving genes or biotechnology is unpatentable.

3. IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14; (2009) 239 CLR 458

Area: Copyright and compilations of information.

Facts and issue: Nine Network claimed that IceTV had infringed copyright by using information from Nine’s television program schedules in its electronic program guide.

Decision and principle: The High Court rejected the copyright claim in the circumstances. Copyright in a compilation does not automatically protect the underlying facts or information. The court must identify the relevant original expression and assess whether a substantial part of that protected expression was taken.

Significance: This decision is important for databases, digital platforms, information aggregators and businesses that reuse factual material. It demonstrates that commercial effort alone does not confer copyright over facts.

4. Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149; (2010) 194 FCR 142

Area: Copyright in databases and directories.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned telephone directories and whether copyright subsisted in directories generated using extensive computerised processes.

Decision and principle: The Full Federal Court considered whether the works were original works produced by identifiable human authors. Copyright requires more than the existence of a useful compilation: the statutory authorship and originality requirements must be met.

Significance: The case is particularly relevant to automated databases, computer-generated material and AI-assisted production. It illustrates the importance of establishing human authorship and the required intellectual contribution under Australian copyright law.

5. Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corporation Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101

Area: Patent interpretation and infringement.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned patent rights over a product design and the proper interpretation of the patent claims in determining infringement.

Decision and principle: The High Court considered the relationship between the language of the claims, the specification and the alleged infringing product. Patent rights depend on the scope of the monopoly defined by the patent, interpreted in its proper technical and statutory context.

Significance: The case illustrates why precise claim drafting and careful claim construction are essential. A commercial product can resemble a patented product without necessarily infringing; the legal question is whether the relevant patent claims cover what was made or used.

6. Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2013] FCA 653

Area: Registered designs and consumer technology.

Facts and issue: Apple alleged that Samsung infringed Australian registered design rights relating to tablet devices.

Decision and principle: The Federal Court examined the designs as registered and compared their visual features with the accused products under the applicable statutory test.

Significance: The litigation illustrates the importance of design registration in consumer electronics. It also shows that design rights are distinct from patent and copyright protection: design infringement focuses on the legally protected visual appearance, not simply the technical function of a device.

7. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131

Area: Computer-implemented inventions and patentability.

Facts and issue: Aristocrat’s patent applications concerned electronic gaming machines involving computer implementation. The dispute examined whether the claimed subject matter qualified as a patentable invention.

Decision and principle: The Full Federal Court formulated an approach that distinguishes an abstract idea merely manipulated on a computer from an abstract idea implemented to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result. The invention must be considered as a whole, rather than by isolating only the inventive features from the rest of the claim.

Significance: This is an important recent development for software, digital systems and technology businesses. It may affect patent drafting and examination for computer-implemented inventions, although patentability still depends on the specific claims and all relevant statutory requirements.

allens.com.au

+1

8. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc [2024] FCAFC 168

Area: Software copyright and patent infringement.

Facts and issue: Motorola alleged infringement of patents and copyright in software firmware used in digital mobile radios. The case involved software developed with the participation of former Motorola engineers, with allegedly copied material incorporated into competing products.

Decision and principle: The Full Federal Court largely upheld the first-instance findings, including findings of copyright infringement concerning certain firmware works. The appeal addressed the difficulties of proving copying where source code had been altered, combined with other code and transformed into object code.

Significance: The case demonstrates that software copyright claims can succeed even where direct side-by-side comparison is technically difficult. It highlights the importance of source-code records, development histories, access controls and evidence preservation. Some issues were remitted for further determination.

allens.com.au

9. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc v Anderson (No 2) [2024] FCA 1459

Area: Copyright and technological protection measures.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned a modification tool for Grand Theft Auto V that enabled unauthorised changes to the game’s online operation. Among other claims, Take-Two relied on provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 concerning technological protection measures.

Decision and principle: The Federal Court found breaches of certain provisions prohibiting the manufacture or distribution of tools that circumvent technological protection measures, while finding insufficient evidence for one of the other alleged breaches. The court distinguished between liability for making or distributing circumvention tools and liability for actually circumventing a measure.

Significance: The case is relevant to video games, software modifications, digital rights management and online services. It shows that the statutory requirements for circumvention-related liability must be examined separately from ordinary copyright infringement.

allens.com.au

10. Bed Bath ’N’ Table Pty Ltd v Global Retail Brands Australia Pty Ltd [2025] HCA 50

Area: Trade marks, passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned the use of “HOUSE BED & BATH” branding in the homewares market and whether consumers might believe the respondent’s business was associated with the established BED BATH ’N’ TABLE brand.

Decision and principle: The High Court found misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off in the circumstances, despite the different outcome on the trade mark infringement claim. It confirmed that deceptive similarity under the Trade Marks Act is not a prerequisite for a claim under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. Dishonest intention is not essential to establish misleading or deceptive conduct.

Significance: The decision demonstrates that trade mark infringement, passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct are separate causes of action. Businesses should assess the overall impression created by branding, including store presentation and reputation, rather than relying solely on whether two marks satisfy the statutory infringement test.

allens.com.au

11. The Game Meats Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2025] FCAFC 104

Area: Copyright ownership, equitable remedies and unauthorised recordings.

Facts and issue: Footage obtained after trespass onto an abattoir’s premises was published by an animal advocacy organisation. The dispute included whether the footage’s maker could retain and exploit copyright despite the circumstances in which it was created.

Decision and principle: The Full Federal Court upheld damages for trespass and granted further relief, including a constructive trust over the copyright in the footage in favour of the applicant, together with orders concerning assignment and deletion. The court applied equitable principles to the circumstances of the recording and its publication.

Significance: The decision is notable for the interaction between copyright ownership and equitable remedies. It suggests that copyright ownership may not always be the end of the inquiry where the work was created through conduct infringing another party’s rights. The litigation has been subject to further appellate developments, so the decision should not be treated as a universal rule that every unlawfully obtained recording belongs to the property owner.

allens.com.au

12. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Sun Pharma ANZ Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 161

Area: Pharmaceutical patents and patent-term extensions.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned whether a patent covering a pharmaceutical formulation containing the known active ingredient aripiprazole qualified for a patent-term extension under the Patents Act 1990.

Decision and principle: The Full Federal Court held that the statutory definition of “pharmaceutical substance” relevant to the extension provisions focused on the active substance producing the therapeutic effect and did not extend to the formulation at issue.

Significance: The case is commercially important because patent-term extensions can affect the timing of generic competition. It highlights the need to distinguish the scope of a patent from eligibility for an extension of its term. It also demonstrates that established assumptions about pharmaceutical patent portfolios may need to be reassessed when appellate courts reinterpret statutory provisions.

allens.com.au

+1

5. Comparative analysis: Australia and other jurisdictions

6. Practical and policy implications

For creators and technology businesses

Maintain clear records of creation, development, authorship, licensing and ownership.

Use written agreements to allocate IP rights in commissioned work, software, AI-assisted outputs and collaborative projects.

Conduct patentability, freedom-to-operate and trade mark clearance assessments before commercial launch.

Keep source code, design files and development histories secure and preserve evidence of alleged copying.

Review platform and software licence terms, particularly where technological protection measures are involved.

For policymakers

Australia’s emerging IP policy challenges include:

AI and creative markets: providing workable licensing options while preserving legitimate innovation and access to knowledge.

Access to justice: reducing the cost and complexity of enforcing rights, particularly for individual creators and small businesses.

Digital design: ensuring design protection responds to virtual products and rapidly changing interfaces.

Indigenous cultural protection: developing approaches that recognise collective custodianship and cultural protocols.

Competition and public interest: preventing IP rights from being misunderstood as absolute control over facts, ideas, naturally occurring materials or unprotected information.

International enforcement: addressing the practical difficulties of proving and remedying infringement where developers, platforms, evidence and users are located in different countries.

7. Conclusion

Emerging Australian IP law is being shaped by the interaction between established statutory rights and new technologies, commercial practices and cultural expectations. The cases discussed above illustrate several enduring principles: copyright protects qualifying expression rather than facts alone; patents must satisfy the statutory requirements for patentability; trade mark rights operate alongside consumer law; and equitable remedies can become important where ordinary IP rules do not fully resolve a dispute.

The most significant developing areas are AI and copyright, computer-implemented inventions, pharmaceutical patent extensions, online branding, digital designs and Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property. Their future development will depend on judicial decisions, statutory reform and the ability of the Australian system to balance innovation, creator protection, competition and public access.

This is a general educational overview, not legal advice on a particular dispute. The current status of legislation and any pending appeal should be checked before relying on a case for a live matter.