Validity and infringement motions are largely successful after Markman ruling
IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc, et al., Civ. No. 06-282-SLR, April 28, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment of infringement is granted in part and denied in part; defendants' motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is also granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of validity is granted. Defendants' motions for summary judgment of invalidity are denied. Plaintiff’s motion that defendants have no valid license defense is granted in part and denied in part as moot. Defendants' motion that it has a valid license defense is denied as moot.
This suit relates to casino slot machine technology and player rewards. Casino slot machines may be networked together. Networking allows for advantages such as the casino's ability to monitor patrons' slot play and to extract accounting data from individual machines. Plaintiff alleges that defendants' “Bally Power Bonusing®” slot machine technology infringes one or more claims of the asserted patents. The Court first construes several disputed claims relating to the motions. Based upon the construed terms, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s infringement claims are appropriate as to certain claims but not as to others. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that summary judgment on invalidity as to anticipation and obviousness is appropriate but plaintiff’s motion on validity as to certain claims is granted. Defendants concede that their affirmative defense to infringement based on the existence of a license as to two of the patents-in-suit must fail given that no such license, either express or implied, exists. Defendant’s motion regarding a license defense on the third patent is moot based upon the Court’s finding of noninfringement.
