Intellectual Property & Technology: 2025 Year in Review

Our Intellectual Property & Technology team reflects on the year and the industry trends of 2025. The team also looks toward what the next 12 months may have in store.

“This year has continued to see significant developments in the sophistication of, and the growing use of, generative AI technologies. We expect that business will focus more in the next 12 months on managing intellectual property, data protection and privacy risks as well as compliance with Australian and overseas regulation and guidance.

The next 12 months are also likely to see continuing challenging conditions for international trade with consequential dampening of growth in the Australian economy and worldwide. In that environment, the importance of businesses developing and sustaining a competitive advantage through intellectual property protection have never been more important.”

Tim Clark – Partner

Industry insights 

Generative AI

This year has seen significant developments in relation to the legal regulation of artificial intelligence (AI).

In early December 2025, the Commonwealth Government released its National AI Plan. The Plan signals the Government’s embrace of generative AI as a means of lifting productivity. You can read more in our December 2025 insight here.

Of particular interest, the Government has decided to pivot away from introducing AI-specific regulation and focus on adapting Australia’s existing regulatory regime to govern the development and use of generative AI systems by Australian businesses. As part of its Plan, the Government signalled a decision to cease development of mandatory guardrails for the use of AI in high risk settings, accepting a suggestion from the Productivity Commission and from the developers of generative AI systems that Australia should not follow the path set by the European Union.

However, the Productivity Commission also suggested that the Government considers implementing an exception to Australia’s current copyright laws to enable developers of generative AI models to freely use copyrighted materials. The Government ruled this out, without suggesting an alternative approach. Accordingly, the developers of generative AI models looking to use copyrighted materials belonging to Australian copyright owners will need to manage their compliance with Australian intellectual property (particularly) copyright laws carefully.

Late in 2025, the Australian Privacy Commissioner published her report into the investigation under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) into Kmart’s use of AI-powered facial recognition technology for fraud detection and prevention purposes, and held that Kmart had not complied with its statutory obligations concerning the collection and use of sensitive information derived from the use of the facial recognition technology.

Internationally, we are closely watching various legal proceedings filed in the US and UK, in particular, by copyright holders, such as authors and record labels, alleging copyright infringement by many generative AI platforms. The outcomes of these cases may be influential in whether we will see similar cases being pursued in Australia or the need for legislative reform in the area of copyright law

Technology

This year has marked a number of developments relating to the protection of computer technologies. In particular, the Full Federal Court of Australia has provided guidance on copyright protection for computer code and patent protection for computer implemented inventions.

In the case of Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd v Motorola Solutions Inc [2024] FCAFC 168, the Full Federal Court heard an appeal by Hytera relating to its alleged infringement of Motorola’s copyright in its computer software used in its digital mobile radios. The Court determined that computer code can meet the requirements of an “original” work and be subject of copyright protection even if it is derived from, or based on, an earlier work. In finding that Hytera had infringed Motorola’s copyright, the Court held that in determining whether a “substantial part” of a copyright work has been copied, the originality of the part copied is assessed by reference to the essential or material features of the copyright work. You can read more about the decision in our June 2025 insight here.

The case of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 ended a long running saga of litigation starting in 2018. Aristocrat had sought patent protection for a system and method for providing a feature game on its electronic gaming machines. The Full Court in finding that Aristocrat’s computer implemented inventions were a patentable invention, held that the requirement for a computer implemented invention to produce an artificial state of affairs and useful result need not be inventive or ingenious. In particular, Aristocrat’s configurable symbols with variable prize values and feature games triggered by specific events produced an “artificial state of affairs” and a “useful result” as it significantly enhanced the playing experience. You can read more about the decision in our November 2025 insight here.

Privacy and Data Protection

The first tranche of reform to Australia’s privacy laws took effect in the first half of 2025, six months after the laws passed Parliament in November 2024. Significantly, Australia now has a statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy that confers on an individual the right to claim damages for a serious invasion of privacy.

Australia’s current Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland MP, indicated that further reforms to Australia’s privacy legislation are under consideration, but did not commit publicly to a timeframe for when these reforms might be introduced into Parliament. For those businesses that collect, use and disclose personal information on a daily basis, keeping a watching brief on the Government’s position regarding privacy is encouraged.

In October 2025, the Federal Court of Australia held that Australian Clinical Labs had engaged in a practice that interfered with the privacy of over 200,000 individuals by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the privacy of their personal information. The Court ordered Australian Clinical Labs to pay a civil penalty of $5.8 million to the Privacy Commissioner, marking the first time that such a civil penalty had been ordered. The Court held, on the evidence, that Australian Clinical Labs, had inadequate cyber security controls in place, in contravention of its statutory obligations to take reasonable steps to protect the privacy of personal information, and also had failed to notify the Privacy Commissioner and affected individuals of a notifiable data breach, in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

In July 2025, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner published the Privacy Commissioner’s report into her preliminary inquiries into whether I-MED Radiology Network Limited had contravened the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) when I-MED shared with a generative AI start-up certain patient data. The Commissioner held that I-MED had taken sufficient steps to ensure that the patient data was de-identified before disclosure to the AI start-up, and that I-MED had imposed significant contractual restrictions on the AI start-up’s use of the data received from I-MED, so that I-MED had not contravened any obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

Late in 2025, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner announced an intention to conduct a client sweep of 60 businesses in six sectors of the Australian economy to assess whether their privacy policies comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The Office noted that those businesses without a compliant approach to the collection of personal information could be subject to regulatory action, such as compliance and infringement notices that are now available to the Privacy Commissioner following the first tranche of reforms to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

In May 2025, the Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cth) took effect, imposing an obligation on businesses with an annual turnover exceeding $3 million to report ransomware payments to the Commonwealth Government. You can read more about the Cyber Security Act in our October 2024 insight here.

Team movements  

We welcomed Al Macphee as a Special Counsel this year, and celebrated the well-deserved promotions of Travis Shueard to Special Counsel, and Laura Coppola and JD Hohmann to Associate. We were also pleased to have Zara Cox officially join the team as a Lawyer since her admission in the Supreme Court of South Australia in November. We are excited to see our team continue to grow and deliver excellent service to our clients.

Client and industry engagement

The Intellectual Property & Technology team provided several bespoke seminars and webinars throughout 2025 on intellectual property issues for clients, both in-person and online. As part of our Digital Law series, Tim Clark and Craig Subocz hosted a webinar discussing the evolving intersection of intellectual property and generative AI, available on demand.

Additionally, the team published a number of timely insights while partaking in client and industry events, sponsorships and memberships.

Recognition

This year, our team received outstanding recognition across several sources. We thank our clients and colleagues, and look forward to continued success in 2026.

The Legal 500 Asia Pacific

In the 2025 edition of The Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Piper Alderman was recognised across 15 areas of law including Intellectual Property, IT and Telecoms, and Data Protection, with partners from our Intellectual Property & Technology team recognised in the following areas:

• Tim Clark– Intellectual Property, Data Protection, and IT and telecoms
• Tim O’Callaghan– Intellectual Property
• Craig Subocz – Data Protection, and IT and telecoms

The Best Lawyers in Australia

In the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in Australia, partners and senior lawyers from our Intellectual Property & Technology team are recognised in the following areas:

• Tim Clark– Privacy and Data Security Law
• Tim O’Callaghan– Intellectual Property Law
• Travis Shueard – Ones to Watch: Litigation

Doyle’s Guide

In the 2025 rankings for Doyle’s Guide, Tim O’Callaghan was recognised as a Leading Lawyer in the areas of Intellectual Property / Technology, Media & Telecommunications in South Australia.

The team was delighted to receive positive feedback from clients and contacts during the research process for the legal directories, including the following testimonials:

‘Piper Alderman is distinguished from other firms by its excellence in efficient, practical, reliable, and straightforward legal advice.’

‘The team has a good balance of legal strategy and pragmatism.’

‘The team is dedicated to understanding their client’s challenges and pain points, and then applying their skills and expertise to help solve the issues and position their client for success.’ 

‘The Piper Alderman Intellectual Property practice takes time to understand the client’s business and their needs. The team are solutions focused in delivering on point advice to assist in managing and enhancing a client’s intellectual property assets.’ 

‘The firm has many great attributes but of most significance are their attentiveness and the importance that the firm places in its client relationships.’

‘The IP team at Piper Alderman go above and beyond to understand your business and legal needs. They are always thoroughly prepared for each meeting, responsive between meetings and take the time to explain their legal reasonings.’

‘Tim Clarkshould be the partner at Piper Alderman to contact if you need legal advice in this field [data protection].’

‘Tim O’Callaghan is highly experienced, a strategic thinker, a terrific team leader and go-to IP lawyer. Travis Shueardis a reliable up-and-coming IP litigator.’