Nevada District Court Judge Elena Youchah has not ruled on Light & Wonder’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against it by fellow supplier Evolution, but a recent ruling for the judge hints at how she might lean in the case.
Evolution filed the suit in June, claiming that Light & Wonder is violating the IP of the company’s Lightning Roulette product. In the claim, Evolution said that, at one point, they partnered with Light & Wonder to launch a land-based version of the game, only for Light & Wonder to back out and subsequently launch its own title, Roulette X.
While Youchah considers Light & Wonder’s motion to dismiss, the company is attempting to stall the discovery process from moving forward. However, in a ruling last week, the judge denied the company’s request to stay discovery.
“When deciding whether to issue a stay, a court must take a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the dispositive motion pending in the case,” she wrote.
“Here, a preliminary peek at Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss does not convince the Court that Defendants will win dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiffs.”
Namely, Youchah thinks that Light & Wonder’s claim that its agreement with Evolution would relegate this issue to arbitration is suspect and that intellectual property infringement might fall outside of its scope. In its argument to dismiss, Light & Wonder claimed Lightning Roulette is too broad of a concept to be patentable and fails the Alice test, but even if it were, that it would be covered under its arbitration agreement with Evolution.
If the motion to dismiss is denied, that will be a second case moving forward against Light & Wonder. Aristocrat is suing the group for violating trade secrets. The company says Light & Wonder’s Dragon Train infringes on Aristocrat’s Dragon Link. During its most recent earnings call, Light & Wonder said it has successfully removed or replaced 95% of the games following a court order that takes the game offline until the matter is resolved.
Light & Wonder CEO Matt Wilson said he disagreed with the court’s ruling, but that the company quickly complied while minimizing impact on the bottom line.
