Application for a permanent injunction is denied
IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 06-282-SLR, December 22, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is denied.
The patents-in-suit relate to slot machine technologies. The court earlier found that defendants infringe two of the three patents-in-suit, leaving two issues for trial: willfulness and counterclaim for invalidity of one patent. Trial was canceled, willfulness will be tried with damages after appeal, and the counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff then moved for a permanent injunction. Courts typically enter permanent injunctions where plaintiff practices the invention and is a direct competitor. The evidence presented does not establish that this is a clear case of a two-supplier market such that a sale by defendant is necessarily a loss to plaintiff. The court finds insufficient evidence of the market or link between infringing sales and a change in the market landscape. Furthermore, there is no clear indication that money damages cannot be calculated. Thus the plaintiff has not met the burden of establishing irreparable harm or insufficiency of money damages.

