An innovative patent must provide a substantial contribution to the working of the invention. The case concerned the display of information on fixed and handheld devices. The provision of a handheld remote control was not seen as a substantial contribution to the working of the invention. Absent any remote display, the provision of information on a remote display would have provided a substantial contribution.
Invalidating an innovation patent for want of innovative step can be a difficult process. Features that provide any type of advantage in the context of the invention may be seen to provide a substantial improvement to the working of the thing (and not to be seen as superficial or peripheral to the invention). For this reason it is generally necessary to find a clear knockout in a single document or an act. A single source of information test applies that excludes general incorporations by reference.
The Applicant had been given an opportunity to amend. In considering whether to grant a further opportunity to amend, weight was given to:(i) the invention having patentable subject matter; and (ii) there there being a genuine attempt to amend.