When More Features Don’t Mean More Value: Aristocrat and the Real Cost of Complexity
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Civil Procedure & Evidence › Aristocrat v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29
Published: 18 November 2025 | Reviewed: 18 November 2025
(3-minute read)
Case Study: Aristocrat v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 - Perspective 2
The Commissioner characterised Aristocrat’s claim as relying on a conventional gaming machine delivering a new “feature game”. The High Court highlighted a pivotal point:
“The substance of the claim… was what it disclosed only in its feature game, which, as an abstract idea, is not patentable.”
The Court reiterated that adding layers of functionality to a generic device does not transform an abstract idea into an invention. Complexity did not equal value.
Why It Still Matters
This resonates deeply with commercial legal practice. Clients frequently face cost-intensive processes where:
trial preparation runs parallel to settlement work;
“comprehensive strategy packages” bundle together activities that add little value;
complexity is used as a justification for escalation rather than clarity.
Aristocrat demonstrates that extra layers, without genuine technical contribution, do not change the underlying substance.
How to Avoid the Same Trap -
Cost Alignment
Clean Law’s cost-alignment safeguard is designed around this problem.
Traditional models often charge for both paths, settlement and litigation preparation, regardless of which outcome the client ultimately needs. Complexity increases cost without increasing value.
Clean Law structurally separates the paths:
“Two lawyers often cost less than one - because you fund one path, not both.”
Or, as some clients prefer:
“If you save, we win; if your case drags, we lose.”
This avoids the Aristocrat dynamic where additional “features” appeared to enhance the invention but did not shift its substance.
By aligning cost with outcome direction, clients avoid paying for duplicated complexity and retain clearer control over resources and risk.
Reflection
Aristocrat shows that more activity is not synonymous with more value. Modern clients increasingly look for models where work is tied to meaningful contribution, not added layers.
Understand how cost-alignment works in practice
For clients facing escalating legal complexity, the structural design is often the difference between clarity and drift.
Prefer a confidential review first?
A brief discussion can clarify your strategic direction before costs escalate.
Book securely
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
