Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00993, involves a dispute between prominent players in the gaming and entertainment technology sector. The plaintiffs are Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, SIA Evolution Latvia, and Uplay1 (collectively referred to as "Evolution"), all operating companies specializing in online casino content and live dealer gaming solutions. The defendants are Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc. (collectively "Light & Wonder"), also operating companies that provide cross-platform games and entertainment products, and were formerly known as Scientific Games Corp.. This is not a case brought by a non-practicing entity (NPE) but rather a direct competitor dispute over intellectual property. The litigation also includes claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, which are currently subject to arbitration.

The core of the patent infringement claim centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014, titled "System and Method for Displaying an Object From a Sequence of Objects". While the full technical details require reviewing the patent itself, the title suggests an invention related to the presentation or display of sequences of objects, potentially within a gaming or interactive media context. The accused products or services, though not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries, are likely Light & Wonder's gaming technologies or platforms that allegedly infringe upon this patent. The initial complaint in this case was provisionally sealed but was later unsealed.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Cristina D. Silva, with Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe also assigned. The procedural posture is currently stayed pending the outcome of arbitration regarding the trade secret misappropriation claims, with a joint status report due by November 30, 2026, or sooner if the arbitral tribunal renders a decision. The District of Nevada has its own Local Patent Rules, which are designed to streamline discovery and clarify legal theories early in the litigation process, though the volume of patent cases here is moderate compared to some other popular venues. This case is notable due to the direct competition between the parties in the gaming industry and the parallel challenges to the asserted patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Light & Wonder has filed an inter partes review (IPR2025-01072) against U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014, along with other patents, indicating a multi-pronged defense strategy. Light & Wonder has stipulated that if the PTAB institutes IPR, they will not pursue the same grounds in the district court litigation, but reserve the right to do so if institution is denied.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation in Evolution Malta Limited et al v. Light & Wonder, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-00993, in the Nevada District Court. The case involved U.S. Patent Nos. 10,629,024; 11,011,014; 11,756,371; 9,905,074; and 11,783,663, along with misappropriation of trade secrets claims.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Limited, and SIA Evolution Latvia (collectively, "Evolution") filed the initial complaint against Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc. (collectively, "L&W") on May 28, 2024.
• Complaint Unsealed: The unredacted version of the complaint, initially sealed, was unsealed by court order on July 2, 2024.
• Second Amended Complaint (SAC): Evolution later filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 125), which included both patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets claims.
• Answer/Counterclaims: Details regarding L&W's formal answer and counterclaims to the Second Amended Complaint are not explicitly available in the provided snippets, though L&W did file various motions in response to the complaints.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Compel Arbitration (Trade Secret Claims): L&W filed a motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 74) for the misappropriation of trade secrets claims. This motion was granted by Judge Cristina D. Silva on September 30, 2025. The court ordered the parties to submit these claims to arbitration in accordance with a License Agreement.
• Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint: L&W's motion to dismiss Evolution's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 114) was denied as moot on September 30, 2025, following the order compelling the trade secret claims to arbitration.
• Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Patent Claims): L&W filed a motion to dismiss Evolution's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 156), specifically targeting the patent infringement claims. This motion was granted by an Amended Order signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on April 6, 2026. The dismissal of the patent infringement claims was based on 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding the asserted patents to be directed to unpatentable abstract ideas.
• Motion to Stay Discovery: L&W filed a motion to stay discovery. Responses to this motion were due by May 29, 2025. The specific outcome is not detailed, but the subsequent dismissal of patent claims and arbitration of trade secret claims likely impacted discovery.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case did not reach a published Markman ruling for the patent claims, as these claims were dismissed on grounds of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 before claim construction would typically occur. [Implied by the court's dismissal order and lack of a Markman reference in the context of this case.]

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Beyond the defendants' motion to stay discovery, no other specific strategic discovery milestones are detailed in the available records.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• No trial occurred for the patent infringement claims, as they were dismissed at the pre-trial motion stage. The trade secret claims were diverted to arbitration, thus no trial in the district court for those either.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:

• Patent Claims: The patent infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice on April 6, 2026, based on a finding of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This constitutes a final disposition for the patent claims in this federal court litigation.
• Trade Secret Claims: The misappropriation of trade secrets claims were compelled to arbitration on September 30, 2025. The court required a joint status report addressing the arbitration by April 30, 2026, indicating that these claims are proceeding outside of the district court.
• Present Posture: The federal court case 2:24-cv-00993 is active, but the patent infringement claims have been dismissed, and the trade secret claims are in arbitration.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-01072: Light & Wonder Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-01072) challenging at least one of Evolution Malta Limited's patents involved in the district court case (2:24-cv-00993).
  • Petition Filed: May 30, 2025.
  • Trial Instituted: The PTAB decided to institute a trial for IPR2025-01072 on December 17, 2025.
• Effect on Litigation: Although the IPR was instituted before the district court dismissed the patent claims, it did not directly cause the dismissal. The court's dismissal was based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent eligibility), whereas IPRs typically address patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness). The IPR proceeding is currently ongoing ("Trial Instituted") and its final outcome, once rendered, could be relevant for any potential appeals or collateral estoppel effects, though the district court patent claims have already been dismissed.

The plaintiff(s) in this case are Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Limited, and SIA Evolution Latvia.

The counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) include:

• Thomas A. Broughan III

  • Role: Lead Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Borghesani & Tabizon
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Thomas A. Broughan III is a partner at Borghesani & Tabizon. While specific patent litigation experience for him personally was not immediately found in the search results, the firm Borghesani & Tabizon indicates a focus on intellectual property.

• Jason D. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP
  • Office Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Experience: Jason D. Smith is listed as local counsel for the plaintiffs in this case. Spencer Fane LLP has a presence in intellectual property litigation.

Note on other potential counsel:
PacerMonitor, a legal docket tracking service, also lists other attorneys associated with the plaintiffs, including Sharon Lee, Joshua J. Fougere, and Ching-Lee Fukuda of Sidley Austin LLP, and Nicholas J. Santoro of Spencer Fane LLP. However, a court order from May 1, 2025, specifically grants pro hac vice for Thomas A. Broughan III and approves Jason D. Smith as local counsel for the plaintiffs. To ensure accuracy based on explicit court filings, the primary attorneys identified for the plaintiff are Thomas A. Broughan III and Jason D. Smith, based on this direct court order. Without further, more recent docket entries confirming the active involvement of the other listed attorneys for the plaintiffs, their current role cannot be definitively stated based on the provided search results.

The defendants in Evolution Malta Limited et al v. Light & Wonder, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-00993 in the Nevada District Court, are Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc..

The counsel of record representing the defendant(s) are:

• Randall E. Kay

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Jones Day, San Diego, CA.
  • Experience Note: Kay is a highly experienced patent litigator with a focus on high-stakes intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation cases. He has represented clients in federal courts across various industries.

• Ryan K. Walsh

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Jones Day, San Diego, CA.
  • Experience Note: Walsh focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright disputes, with experience in federal courts and the International Trade Commission.

• Jennifer D. Bennett

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Jones Day, San Diego, CA.
  • Experience Note: Bennett's practice includes patent litigation in various technology areas, along with other intellectual property matters.

• Laura Kanouse

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Jones Day. (Office location not specified in direct search results for this case, likely San Diego based on other Jones Day attorneys listed).
  • Experience Note: Kanouse practices intellectual property litigation.

• Collin Kurtenbach

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Jones Day. (Office location not specified in direct search results for this case, likely San Diego based on other Jones Day attorneys listed).
  • Experience Note: Kurtenbach practices intellectual property litigation.

• Harold K. Gordon

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Jones Day. (Office location not specified in direct search results for this case, likely San Diego based on other Jones Day attorneys listed).
  • Experience Note: Gordon is involved in intellectual property litigation.

• Philip R. Erwin

  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Campbell & Williams, Las Vegas, NV.
  • Experience Note: Erwin is a litigation attorney at a prominent Nevada firm, providing local counsel support in federal court cases.