The Leading Authority on CII Patents: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents

On 5 February 2026, the High Court refused special leave to appeal the 2025 case of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131 (Aristocrat II). In doing so, the dispute over patented technology on Electronic Gaming Machines was settled. This commentary by Sanae Prasad

Background

Aristocrat Technologies is a company which develops electronic gaming machines (EGMs) with particular features to improve gameplay. These features include feature games and configurable symbols.

The main issue in contention was whether these features are patentable. On 16 September 2025, in Aristocrat II, the Full Federal Court developed the test as deciding whether the invention is;

a)     An abstract idea merely implemented on a computer, or;

b)    An abstract idea that produces an artificially created state of affairs and a useful result

The Full Court found that the latter may be potentially patentable.

In Aristocrat’s case, the Full Court argued that the feature games and configurable symbols did produce an artificially created state of affairs and a useful result, and was thus patentable.

The features were interdependent with the physical machine and enhanced the player experience. The invention is bespoke, altered EGM, not merely an idea implemented on an EGM.

Effects of This Decision

This broadened the approach to determining patentable subject matter for computer-implemented inventions by rejecting the approach taken by the Full Court in Aristocrat I that patentability relies on an ‘advance in computer technology’.

The two-step approach in Aristocrat II requires the patent claim to be considered as a whole.

This could theoretically make it easier to obtain patents for software and computer-implemented inventions. In particular, this should broaden the scope to include inventive methods on generic hardware and software.

However, IP Australia has taken a cautious approach.

The Patent Manual has been updated, however, continues to rely on earlier ‘indicia’ including:

-         Whether the invention improves computer functioning

-         Whether it involves generic computer implementation

-         Where there is ingenuity in computer use

-         Whether steps are foreign to normal computer use

Guidance in the manual still suggests that games on ‘generic computer systems’; are unlikely to be patentable. 

While companies within the industry of computer-implemented inventions are likely to take advantage of this ruling to obtain more patents, much will depend on how the courts and the Commissioner of Patents interpret and apply the simplified criterion in practice.

Future cases will determine where the line is ultimately drawn between a mere idea and an inventive “state of affairs.”