When Form Hides Substance: What Aristocrat Teaches About Power, Process and Fairness
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Business Judgment & Corporate Governance › 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 1
The High Court dismissed Aristocrat’s appeal, holding that its “feature game” innovation was not a patentable invention. The plurality grounded its reasoning in a simple sentence:
“[T]he integers in claim 1… do not disclose any departure from the common general knowledge as to the computerisation of games or gaming.”
The Court emphasised that patentability must be assessed by substance, not by attaching familiar physical elements (screens, meters, controllers) to an abstract idea. At its core, the claim was a new set of gaming rules, not a technological invention.
This reflects a consistent line in Australian law since NRDC and Grant: schemes or ideas do not become inventions simply because they appear inside a familiar structure.
Why It Still Matters
The judgment remains relevant well beyond patents. It illustrates a recurring risk in commercial disputes: the appearance of structure can mask a lack of substantive change.
Clients often encounter situations where:
processes look robust, but all decisions funnel through one person;
“oversight” exists in name, not independence;
teams present as multi-layered, yet power concentrates in a single hand.
Aristocrat shows how courts respond when form obscures substance, they look through it. Clients, especially in high-stakes matters, increasingly want the same transparency.
How to Avoid the Same Trap -
Clear Role Separation
A safer approach is to build structures that cannot collapse into one point of control.
Clean Law is designed for this exact risk. Its role-separation safeguard means:
One lawyer negotiates, another builds litigation readiness, ensuring neither can dominate strategy by controlling all paths.
No shared profits and no referral fees, supported by ACNC-governed reporting and Law Society trust-account audits.
Structural independence is visible - not merely asserted.
This prevents the dynamic exposed in Aristocrat, where the claim presented as a complex machine but ultimately rested on the same common general knowledge.
When teams have genuinely separate mandates, clients gain clearer signals, fewer blind spots and decisions anchored in substance, not presentation.
Reflection
Aristocrat reminds us that systems built on appearances eventually face scrutiny. Clients increasingly prefer frameworks where independence is architectural, not discretionary.
Learn how Clean Law structures independence
Clearer processes begin with transparent role separation.
Or confidentially discuss your matter
Book securely
Where financial exposure or governance pressure is high, many clients value a private first conversation.
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.
