IGT Suing Bally Over Wheel of Fortune Patent Infringement

From 43(B)log:

IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 2007 WL 911773 (D. Nev.)

The parties are competitors in the market for computerized gaming machines, specifically “wheel of fortune” type machines. IGT sued defendants (collectively Bally) for patent infringement. Defendants counterclaimed for declarations of invalidity, noninfringement, and unenforceability, as well as antitrust violations and false advertising based on IGT’s allegedly fraudulent acts in receiving its patents and claiming on its website that Bally was an infringer of those patents.

Usually, it’s difficult to maintain a false advertising claim based on a competitor’s statements about IP violations. The exception, which applied here, is when the relevant consumers are sophisticated businesses that can be expected to pay attention to allegations of patent infringement. The remaining hurdle is that courts generally impose an intent requirement – indeed, a bad faith requirement — not otherwise present in the Lanham Act, in order to allow people to make good-faith but mistaken claims about patent validity. Bally avoided summary judgment on this issue, because of disputed factual issues about what IGT knew about the validity of its patents when it issued a press release claiming that it filed a patent infringement case to “stop [Bally] from misappropriating IGT’s patented innovations.” Given the factual issue on bad faith, Bally could also take advantage of the presumption that intentional deception actually deceives the public.

Another potential issue is whether press releases count as “advertising or promotion”; again, at least with sophisticated consumers, it’s likely that they do. Indeed, Bally submitted evidence that it received numerous concerned inquiries as a result of the press release and lost at least one order for 100 machines. Given that patent owners can pursue end-users of infringing devices, Bally’s customers were right to be concerned. IGT did, however, win summary judgment on Bally’s intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim, because there was no evidence IGT knew about this particular lost order.

You can receive our articles for free in your email inbox, with more law news and legal tips. Just enter your email below:

Related Posts:

• Patent Law: Description and Types
• Patent Holders in the United States Can’t Enforce Foreign Patents in US Courts
• False Patent Claim Doesn’t Mean False Advertising
• Patent Office Rejects Patent Protection For Latin American Enola Bean
• Patent Law Battle Plays Out Between Vonage and Verizon
• Privacy Policy Lawsuit Leads to Multimillion Lanham Act Award
• IDEA v PETA: New Post-Registration Copyright Infringement
• Three of the Craziest Patents Ever Issued
• Electrolux Sanitaire Tries to Suck the Money Out of Imig
• The Reality of Ignoring Patents