Arguments began last week in a patent-infringement lawsuit brought against slot manufacturer Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. (ATI) by rival Scientific Games over curved-screen slot monitor and 360-degree gaming devices.
The former Bally Technologies, now part of Scientific Games, introduced its curved-screen product, the Pro Wave, at Global Gaming Expo in 2013. The following year, Bally launched the Alpha Pro Wave 360 cabinet, which places the curved Pro Wave cabinets in a circular carousel with a common bonus display circling the top. Scientific Games’ lawsuit alleges the Arc Single, Arc Double and Arc Wheel product formats, all displayed at the G2E 2016, violate patents issued for both of the Bally products in 2014.
The lawsuit also alleges trademark infringement against the Easy Money Class II slot brand displayed by VGT, now an Aristocrat subsidiary. Bally has released a variety of Easy Money-branded slot machines since 1998, and has continued to create new games in the brand.
VGT’s wide-area progressive product launched recently under the brand “Easy Money Jackpot.” The Bally lawsuit claims the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused VGT’s application to register the name “due to a likelihood of confusion” with Bally’s Easy Money marks.
However, many in the supply sector will be watching the case more for the court’s application of the curved-screen and 360-degree format—both of which have appeared in various forms in new games from several competing slot manufacturers.
“An ordinary observer will perceive the overall appearance of the designs of Bally Gaming patents and the corresponding designs of the ATI infringing products to be substantially the same,” Bally said in the lawsuit. “ATI, as controlled and directed by Aristocrat Leisure, intended to copy, and did copy, the Bally Gaming patents, as evidenced by at least the similarity between the ATI infringing products and Bally Gaming’s Pro Wave design and Pro Wave 360 design.”
Bally is demanding a jury trial. The case seeks a permanent injunction against further infringements by ATI, plus actual damages, enhance profits and legal costs. The suit names ATI, VGT and Aristocrat Leisure, ATI’s Australian parent company, as defendants.
