Court rules Bally infringed certain IGT patents
April 30, 2009
No Comments
Bally found to infringe certain International
Game Technology patents regarding products
in Bally’s Power Bonusing product suite
A federal district court ruled that Bally Technologies infringed certain International Game Technology patents regarding products in Bally’s Power Bonusing product suite.
In a press statement, IGT said that Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that Bally Technologies, Inc., and its affiliates Bally Gaming International Inc. and Bally Gaming Inc., infringed IGT's U.S. Patent Nos. RE37, 885 and RE38, 812. The court ruled that Bally's "Power Rewards" technology infringed claims 10, 33, and 46 of the '885 patent and claims 21 and 44 of the '812 patent, and that Bally's "ACSC Power Winners" infringed claims 10 and 46 of the '885 patent. The court also granted IGT's motion for summary judgment that the '885 and '812 patents are valid.
In the same order, Judge Robinson denied Bally's motion for a ruling that IGT's U.S. Patent No. 6,431,983 is invalid, according to the IGT statement.
"We are pleased that the court has affirmed the validity of our patents and their infringement. We believe strongly in the United States patent system and the need to protect our intellectual property and respect the valid intellectual property rights of others," said Patti Hart, IGT's president and CEO.
In a Bally press release, the company said the court has issued summary judgment rulings that Bally’s Power Promotions, Power Bank, and SDS/CMP Power Winners products do not infringe IGT patents, while stating the Court also found that Bally’s ACSC Power Winners and ACSC Power Rewards products infringe some asserted patent claims but do not infringe others.
“For the two products partially in question, the company has undertaken technical changes to ensure non-infringement,” said Ramesh Srinivasan, executive vice president of Bally Systems. “The revenues derived from these products to date are immaterial to Bally’s financial position.”
IGT filed this lawsuit against Bally in 2006, alleging that the infringement has taken place despite defendants' knowledge that IGT's patents cover the Bally Power Bonusing technology. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and an injunction. IGT said it expects there will be a trial to assess damages following a period of related discovery.
A federal district court ruled that Bally Technologies infringed certain International Game Technology patents regarding products in Bally’s Power Bonusing product suite.
In a press statement, IGT said that Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that Bally Technologies, Inc., and its affiliates Bally Gaming International Inc. and Bally Gaming Inc., infringed IGT's U.S. Patent Nos. RE37, 885 and RE38, 812. The court ruled that Bally's "Power Rewards" technology infringed claims 10, 33, and 46 of the '885 patent and claims 21 and 44 of the '812 patent, and that Bally's "ACSC Power Winners" infringed claims 10 and 46 of the '885 patent. The court also granted IGT's motion for summary judgment that the '885 and '812 patents are valid.
In the same order, Judge Robinson denied Bally's motion for a ruling that IGT's U.S. Patent No. 6,431,983 is invalid, according to the IGT statement.
"We are pleased that the court has affirmed the validity of our patents and their infringement. We believe strongly in the United States patent system and the need to protect our intellectual property and respect the valid intellectual property rights of others," said Patti Hart, IGT's president and CEO.
In a Bally press release, the company said the court has issued summary judgment rulings that Bally’s Power Promotions, Power Bank, and SDS/CMP Power Winners products do not infringe IGT patents, while stating the Court also found that Bally’s ACSC Power Winners and ACSC Power Rewards products infringe some asserted patent claims but do not infringe others.
“For the two products partially in question, the company has undertaken technical changes to ensure non-infringement,” said Ramesh Srinivasan, executive vice president of Bally Systems. “The revenues derived from these products to date are immaterial to Bally’s financial position.”
IGT filed this lawsuit against Bally in 2006, alleging that the infringement has taken place despite defendants' knowledge that IGT's patents cover the Bally Power Bonusing technology. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and an injunction. IGT said it expects there will be a trial to assess damages following a period of related discovery.
