The central issue in CQMS may not be whether information is being processed. The more important question is why that information is being obtained at all.
This is the second part of a series of three articles exploring the recent CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19 (18 August 2026) Hearing office decision[1].
The wrong question
Information is often treated as a warning sign by Examiners. Once an invention starts looking like mere information processing, analysis, recommendations or decision-making, concerns about patentability quickly arise.
The difficulty with that approach is that almost all modern technology relies on obtaining and using information. Sensors generate information. Medical imaging systems generate information. Control systems generate information. Navigation systems generate information.
The important question is not whether information exists. The important question is why was the information collected, what does the information represent, and what it is being used for.
Why was the wear information obtained?
That issue sits at the heart of CQMS[2].
The invention concerned prediction of replacement timing for the components of heavy mining machines such as the ground engaging teeth (GET) which are subject to wear. Wear information was generated because a machine component was physically deteriorating. The information was then used to determine maintenance action.
The information therefore had a very specific purpose. It represented a physical condition of physical equipment. A specific sensor was place and used to collect wear information to determine what should happen to that equipment. The information was not being generated for curiosity, reporting or abstract analysis.
Rather the dominant purpose for gathering the information was so that a physical maintenance decision could be made.
NRDC still matters
This is where NRDC[3] becomes important. The High Court’s analysis in NRDC is often summarised using the language of an “artificially created state of affairs”. However, another equally important aspect of NRDC is that the invention involved the practical application of information. The discovery itself was not enough. For many years the prevailing view was that discovery was not patentable, but putting that discovery to practical application was. Aristocrat 2025[4] effectively reinforced that doctrine.
What mattered was what was done with the information. The information was applied to achieve a practical result with economic significance. That logic appears equally applicable to predictive maintenance systems. Wear information exists because mining machinery wears. The information is collected because maintenance decisions must eventually be made.
The recommendation is not detached from the physical world. It is the practical application of technical information concerning the physical world.
The wear information versus wear sensor problem
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the CQMS decision was the distinction between:
- a system that data collected from a wear detection device (patentable); and
- a method that determined a wear rate of a component based on the current and previous dimensions (not patentable).
In both cases a maintenance decision on whether to replace a part was then made (based on either the data or wear rate). However, according to the Delegate, the critical decision on patentability rested on whether the claim explicitly included a wear sensor. That distinction sits uncomfortably with NRDC.
Surely the more significant contribution in terms of “a useful result” (as per NRDC) lies in the application of wear rate information to make a maintenance decision rather than in whether the system explicitly includes a sensor. The sensor merely generates data on component wear. It was only installed to collect wear rate information which could be analysed and actioned.
An interesting comparative case is the UK Halliburton case[5]. Whilst not decided under Australia law, it was based on the Aerotel [6] “identify the contribution approach” on which Research Affiliates[7], and RPL Central [8] were based. This was directed to method for designing an improved drill bit based on a detailed finite element modelling method. The UK patent office had rejected the claim on the basis that it was directed only to the design of the drill bit and was not limited to specific manufacture of a drill bit. However, the UK High Court found that actual manufacture was not necessary. The information generated was for the specific purpose of manufacturing an improved drill bit, and had no use outside of that application, and thus the design of the drill bit was patentable.
Practical takeaways
Applicants drafting predictive maintenance, industrial analytics, and monitoring applications are likely to face resistance from the patent office. However, attempts should be made to frame the claims as application of information to produce a useful result.
First, explain why information is generated and what it is used for. Do not simply describe collection of data. Describe the physical phenomenon being measured, and how the information is then used. The application of the information is frequently more important than the information itself.
Second, place the information in context and focus on implementation to produce a useful result. Connect the information to the physical system being monitored and include dependent claims to specific sensors. The stronger the relationship between the information and operation of a physical system, the harder it becomes to characterise the invention as abstract information processing. Focus on use of the information from sensors to produce a useful result.
Looking ahead
In light of NRDC the relevant real question should be – is the invention directed to mere information, or is it directed to the practical use of information?
In many predictive maintenance inventions, the answer is obvious. The information is the means to an operational outcome, i.e., a useful effect. The patentability of the claim shouldn’t depend upon whether it specifically includes a sensor.
Part 3 considers a different but equally curious aspect of CQMS: the apparent tension between economic utility and patentable subject matter.
[1] CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19 (18 August 2026) (‘CQMS’).
[2] CQMS Pty Ltd v Joy Global Surface Mining Inc [2026] APO 19 (18 August 2026) (‘CQMS’).
[3] National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252, 269–77 (‘NRDC’).
[4] Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131, [126]–[132] (‘Aristocrat 2025’).
[5] Re Halliburton Energy Services Inc [2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat) (05 October 2011) (‘Halliburton’).
[6] Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd; Macrossan’s Application [2007] 1 All ER 225 (‘Aerotel’).
[7] Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (‘Research Affiliates’).
[8] RPL Central v Commissioner of Patents [2015] FCAFC 177 (‘RPL’).
