Special Case Review Series – Human Rights Authorities - Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131

Why Every Human Rights Advocate Should Read a Patent Case

By BAJN – Employment & Human Rights Advocate

At first glance, Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents appears to have nothing to do with human rights.

It is a patent case.

It concerns electronic gaming machines.

It examines whether computer-implemented inventions constitute a "manner of manufacture" under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).

So why is it appearing in a Human Rights Authorities Review Series?

Because the judgment is about something far more fundamental than patents.

It is about how Australian courts reason, how they treat precedent, how judges deal with technological change, and how the law adapts when established legal principles are applied to new forms of technology. Those same principles increasingly shape modern human rights litigation.

The Background

Aristocrat owned several innovation patents concerning electronic gaming machines incorporating sophisticated computer software.

The Commissioner of Patents revoked the patents on the basis that they did not disclose a patentable invention.

After years of litigation—including an earlier Full Court decision, an evenly divided High Court, a remittal, and further Federal Court proceedings—the Full Court ultimately allowed Aristocrat's appeal.

The litigation became one of Australia's leading authorities concerning computer-implemented inventions.

More Than A Patent Case

Although the legal issue centred on patents, the reasoning has much wider significance.

The Court reaffirmed several enduring legal principles that appear repeatedly in constitutional, administrative and human rights litigation.

Those include:

• the proper role of precedent;

• how courts should respond to rapidly developing technology;

• careful statutory interpretation;

• identifying the true character of legal rights rather than relying upon labels; and

• ensuring that existing legal principles remain capable of application to modern technologies.

Those themes increasingly arise in discrimination, privacy, surveillance and artificial intelligence cases.

Why Human Rights Advocates Should Care

Artificial intelligence is transforming society.

Algorithms increasingly influence:

• recruitment;

• employment;

• government decision-making;

• policing;

• immigration;

• education;

• insurance;

• healthcare; and

• access to essential services.

As these technologies become more sophisticated, courts are being required to decide whether laws drafted decades ago remain capable of regulating entirely new forms of conduct.

That is precisely the challenge confronted in Aristocrat.

Rather than creating new legal tests simply because computers were involved, the Full Court emphasised that established legal principles remain applicable when properly understood and applied.

The Importance of Characterisation

One of the recurring themes throughout Australian public law is characterisation.

Courts repeatedly ask:

What is this case really about?

That question appears throughout constitutional law, discrimination law, administrative law and human rights jurisprudence.

In Aristocrat, the Court refused to determine patentability merely by attaching labels such as "software" or "computer implementation".

Instead, it examined the substance of the claimed invention.

That approach mirrors the way courts approach discrimination cases.

The real question is not how conduct is described.

The real question is:

• What actually occurred?

• What was its legal character?

• What legal consequences follow?

Those same analytical methods appear in cases under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

Technology Does Not Change Legal Principles

Perhaps the most important lesson from Aristocrat is that technological change does not automatically require entirely new legal doctrines.

Rather, courts ask whether established legal principles can accommodate new factual circumstances.

That philosophy is becoming increasingly important as courts begin confronting:

• generative AI;

• facial recognition;

• algorithmic bias;

• automated decision-making;

• digital identity;

• online harassment;

• synthetic media;

• deepfakes; and

• predictive policing.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has similarly recognised that emerging technologies present both opportunities and risks, and has called for stronger safeguards to ensure AI is developed and deployed consistently with human rights principles.

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131

The Role of Judicial Restraint

Another feature of Aristocrat is judicial restraint.

Rather than attempting to rewrite legislation to meet technological developments, the Court interpreted and applied the legislation enacted by Parliament.

That reflects a longstanding constitutional principle.

Courts interpret.

Parliament legislates.

Where technology creates entirely new legal challenges, legislative reform may ultimately be required.

Until then, courts must faithfully apply existing law.

Implications Beyond Intellectual Property

Although the judgment concerns patent law, its reasoning is likely to influence future disputes involving:

• artificial intelligence;

• automated employment decisions;

• algorithmic discrimination;

• digital surveillance;

• government automation;

• machine learning;

• online moderation;

• biometric technologies; and

• future human rights regulation.

As AI increasingly affects decisions about people's employment, housing, healthcare and government services, courts will continue grappling with how traditional legal principles apply to modern technologies.

Practical Lessons for Advocates

For advocates appearing before tribunals and courts, Aristocrat reinforces several practical lessons:

• Do not assume new technology requires new legal principles.

• Focus on substance rather than labels.

• Carefully analyse statutory language.

• Understand how precedent operates after complex appellate histories.

• Build arguments around legal characterisation rather than technological novelty.

These are lessons that extend well beyond patent law.

Why This Case Belongs in a Human Rights Library

Some of the most influential human rights authorities are not discrimination cases.

They are decisions that explain:

• how courts reason;

• how legislation should be interpreted;

• how precedent operates;

• how new technologies are assessed; and

• how legal principles evolve without abandoning their foundations.

Aristocrat is one of those cases.

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in everyday life, advocates working in employment law, discrimination law and human rights litigation will likely find themselves relying on the broader reasoning in cases like Aristocrat—not because they concern patents, but because they demonstrate how Australian courts adapt enduring legal principles to emerging technologies.

Human Rights Authority Review from an Employment & Human Rights Advocacy Professional viewpoint

Case: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCAFC 131; 311 FCR 493

Court: Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Area of Law: Patent Law / Technology Law / Statutory Interpretation

Human Rights Relevance: ★★★☆☆

Key Principle: Courts apply enduring legal principles to new technologies by focusing on the true legal character of the issue rather than the novelty of the technology involved.

Next in the Series: Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16 – one of Australia's foundational authorities on racial discrimination and freedom of expression. This is NOT legal advice and if you need legal advice, we recommend contacting your State or Territory Law Society.