Share
Online casino platforms in the United States can boast thousands of games in their libraries. On the surface, many titles appear similar in aesthetics and function.
Soon, there could be some new legal precedent around how alike those games can be. Competing game developers are currently hashing out their contention over that issue in federal court.
Two new lawsuits share a common target: they allege that the accused party has produced casino games that are too similar to prior titles developed by the claimants. If the suits proceed to trial, new standards for such developers to observe in their operations may ensue.
Developers target Light & Wonder’s casino games
Currently in process at the federal court for the district of Nevada are two separate but similar lawsuits. Both of them name Light & Wonder (NASDAQ: LNW), a successful supplier for gaming licensees, among the defendants.
The claimant in the older suit is Aristocrat Technologies. In the newer complaint, Evolution Gaming initiated the action.
Both lawsuits accuse Light & Wonder of copyright and/or patent infringement. In the Aristocrat complaint, Light & Wonder’s “Dragon Train” slot games are the issue.
Meanwhile, Evolution’s lawsuit arose over Light & Wonder’s “RouletteX.” In both cases, the plaintiffs argue that those games contain copycat elements of proprietary games released before Light & Wonder debuted the named titles.
That is where the commonalities in these cases begin to end. Evolution’s complaint has an interesting and unique element to it.
Evolution alleges “espionage” alongside patent infringement
In its complaint, Evolution details a partnership between itself and Light & Wonder regarding the development of a game similar to Evolution’s “Lightning Roulette” title.
In essence, the allegations state that the two companies formed a collaborative relationship to allow Light & Wonder to develop a game with many of the elements that Evolution alleges are part of its patent in exchange for royalty payments from Light & Wonder to Evolution.
After Evolution shared many details about Lightning Roulette with Light & Wonder, the complaint states that Light & Wonder began to attempt to terminate the relationship with Evolution and then produced RouletteX with many of the elements that Lightning Roulette features.
Light & Wonder has countered, asking the court to dismiss the case. As of this writing, the court has not ruled on that motion.
In the Aristocrat (ASX: ALL) case, judgment on the merits of the case is still pending. Aristocrat secured a preliminary victory in the litigation, though.
Court orders Light & Wonder to pull slots off gaming floors
For any players who have become fans of the physical Dragon Train slots at Nevada casinos, they might soon find their favorite slots missing. The court has granted Aristocrat’s motion for a preliminary injunction blocking Light & Wonder from commercially utilizing the Dragon Train slots.
As a result, Nevada casinos cannot offer the games to players as long as the injunction is in effect, at least for real money. Light & Wonder has yet to file an appeal of the ruling on the injunction as of the time of this writing.
It’s important to note that the decision on the injunction does not mean that Aristocrat has prevailed in its complaint against Light & Wonder.
Rather, it simply means that in the judge’s opinion, Aristocrat’s case has a significant chance of success on the merits should the matter go to trial. The judge feels that allowing Light & Wonder to continue utilizing the Dragon Train slots represents irreparable harm to Aristocrat.
At this juncture, both cases may end in settlements between the parties. If they go to trial, that could establish new guidelines for such companies.
Just how similar can casino games be?
The court’s potential opinions on these issues will technically only apply in Nevada, with broader implications possible upon appeals. Barring settlements, these possible rulings may establish new protocols for game developers.
The new legal precedent could govern how similar a developer can create games to existing titles. Victories for the plaintiffs could make companies more wary of producing content that boasts common features without a license.
The licensing of specific game mechanics in the casino industry is not unheard of. For example, Evolution licenses the Megaways slot feature to many other developers.
For online casino players, there are possible benefits and drawbacks to heightened awareness of copyright and trademark standards in game development. That could inspire more innovation.
At the same time, it might also incentivize developers to stray from releasing new content, preferring to roll out re-skinned games that they know are safe. Much of this remains hypothetical pending further court decisions, but what is certain is that Light & Wonder is racking up some significant legal bills right now.
