When Rules Look Like Technology: Aristocrat and the Risk of Paying for Schemes
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 3
Nicholas J’s reasoning distilled the underlying issue:
The invention was “a mere scheme or set of rules… implemented using generic computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions.”
The Court held that regardless of how intricate the rules were, the implementation did not transform them into a patentable invention. The machine operated as it always had; only the scheme changed.
Why It Still Matters
This maps onto a broader commercial reality: clients sometimes pay for processes that appear technical but are, in substance, schemes layered onto a generic system.
Examples include:
procedural activity that expands work without advancing the outcome;
strategy frameworks that create movement but not progress;
fee structures that reward activity rather than resolution.
Aristocrat shows how the Court isolates genuine technical contribution from structurally familiar operations.
How to Avoid the Same Trap -
Escrow Oversight
Escrow is particularly relevant where the risk is paying for activity that looks sophisticated but does not move the matter forward.
Clean Law’s escrow safeguard:
holds all client funds in an independently audited trust account;
releases funds only when agreed milestones are met;
prevents unnecessary procedural “schemes” from absorbing resources;
operates under Law Society trust-account audits and ACNC-governed transparency.
This ensures clients are not funding elaborate processes that rest on the same generic foundation - the exact concern the Court identified in Aristocrat.
Reflection
Aristocrat demonstrates that the veneer of complexity does not make a scheme substantive. Escrow provides a structural check against paying for work that doesn’t meaningfully change the case position.
See how escrow prevents value-dilution
A short explainer shows how milestone-based release protects clients from unnecessary layers of work.
Need confidential guidance?
Where financial risk is significant, early clarity often prevents drift.
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.
