Evolution Malta Limited et al. v. Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.

It appears that a prior search for "patent 10629024 abstract" and "patent 10629024 claims" was already planned in step 3 of my initial thought process. I need to execute that. I will now perform those searches to get the technical sketch of patent 10629024.The search results from the last round provided a critical piece of information!
Result from US patent 10629024 Google Patents abstract query states: US10629024B1 * 2018-02-05 2020-04-21 Evolution Malta Limited Systems, methods, and media for implementing internet-based wagering.

This confirms:

• Patent Number: US10629024B1 (which is the granted version of 10629024)
• Assignee: Evolution Malta Limited (one of the plaintiffs)
• Title/Technical Sketch: "Systems, methods, and media for implementing internet-based wagering."

Now I have all the pieces for the overview. I will integrate this information into the final response.

Revised Plan for Patent 10629024 Technical Sketch:

• The patent is US10629024B1, titled "Systems, methods, and media for implementing internet-based wagering."
• It is assigned to Evolution Malta Limited.
• Based on the case context, this patent is related to Evolution's "Lightning Roulette" live casino offering, which involves online wagering games.

I can now construct the full response.

Final check on all points:

• Parties: Evolution entities (operating companies in online casino solutions) vs. Light & Wonder entities (operating companies in land-based and digital gambling products). Confirmed.
• Accused product: Light & Wonder's Roulette X, Power X, and 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette games, allegedly infringing Evolution's Lightning Roulette. Confirmed.
• Patents asserted and sketch: US Patent No. 10,629,024, titled "Systems, methods, and media for implementing internet-based wagering." Confirmed.
• Procedural posture: U.S. District Court, District of Nevada; Judge Cristina D. Silva. Dismissal granted for patent claims (based on §101), trade secret claims sent to arbitration. Case stayed for arbitration. Confirmed.
• Why notable: Major industry players, split jurisdiction (court for patent, arbitration for trade secret), patent eligibility challenges under Alice, failed partnership leading to litigation. Confirmed.

I have all the necessary information now.

This litigation, Evolution Malta Limited et al. v. Light & Wonder, Inc. et al., case number 2:24-cv-00993, unfolds in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The plaintiffs, collectively referred to as "Evolution," include Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, SIA Evolution Latvia, and Uplay1. Evolution is a prominent operating company in the online casino sector, specializing in the development, production, marketing, and licensing of integrated live casino solutions, such as live dealer blackjack and roulette games, for business-to-business (B2B) gaming operators globally. The defendants, Light & Wonder, Inc. (formerly Scientific Games Corporation) and its subsidiary LNW Gaming, Inc., are also major operating companies. Light & Wonder is a global games company headquartered in Nevada, providing a broad range of gambling products and services across land-based gaming (e.g., slot machines, table games), iGaming (digital content), and social casino mobile games (SciPlay). LNW Gaming, Inc., supports these operations by manufacturing and supplying gaming content and technology.

The core of the dispute centers on allegations that Light & Wonder's games, specifically "Roulette X," "Power X," and "88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette," infringe upon Evolution's intellectual property related to its popular "Lightning Roulette" live casino offering. This includes claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,629,024, titled "Systems, methods, and media for implementing internet-based wagering," is assigned to Evolution Malta Limited and generally covers technology for online wagering games. Evolution alleges that Light & Wonder utilized confidential game mathematics and features, initially shared during a collapsed partnership aimed at developing a land-based version of Lightning Roulette, to create the accused competing games.

Procedurally, the case has seen significant developments under U.S. District Judge Cristina D. Silva. While the case was initially filed in May 2024, Judge Silva had previously dismissed an earlier iteration of the patent infringement claims in February (likely 2025 based on reporting dates), citing concerns that the patents related to Lightning Roulette were too vague, but granted Evolution leave to refile. In a more recent development, the court granted Light & Wonder's motion to compel arbitration for Evolution's trade secret misappropriation claims, relying on a 2021 licensing agreement that stipulated arbitration for certain disputes. This means the trade secret claims will be addressed in arbitration in London, while the patent infringement claims remain before the District Court of Nevada. On April 6, 2026, an amended order was issued granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the patent claims, likely based on arguments that the asserted patents were directed to unpatentable abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case is currently stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, with a joint status report due by November 30, 2026. The District of Nevada is a pertinent venue due to Light & Wonder's corporate headquarters being located in Enterprise, Nevada. This case is notable due to the involvement of two leading entities in the global gaming industry, the complex interplay between patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims, and the split jurisdictional approach requiring both court litigation and international arbitration. It also highlights the ongoing challenges of patent eligibility for software-implemented innovations in the gaming sector under the Alice framework.

The patent infringement and trade secrets misappropriation lawsuit, Evolution Malta Limited et al. v. Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00993), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, has seen key developments focused on early dismissals and arbitration.

Here is a chronological overview of the legal developments and outcome:

• 2024-05-28: Case Filing
  Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, SIA Evolution Latvia, and Uplay1 (collectively "Evolution") filed a complaint against Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc. (collectively "L&W"). The complaint alleged willful infringement of three U.S. patents, including US Patent 10,629,024, related to Evolution's "Lightning Roulette" casino game, and misappropriation of trade secrets.

• 2024-06-11: Provisional Sealing of Complaint
  The court provisionally sealed an unredacted version of the plaintiffs' complaint.

• 2024-07-02: Complaint Unsealed
  Following the defendants' agreement, the court ordered the unsealing of the complaint.

• 2024-09-06: Extension for Joint Protective Order
  The parties were granted an extension to file a Joint Protective Order, moving the deadline to September 18, 2024.

• 2025-09-30: Motion to Compel Arbitration Granted for Trade Secret Claims
  The court granted Light & Wonder's motion to compel arbitration for the trade secret claims (ECF No. 74). These claims were ordered to be submitted to arbitration, and the court stayed them pending the arbitration's outcome. The defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF No. 114) was denied as moot.

• 2025-05-29 (Responses Due): Motions to Stay Discovery & Dismiss Amended Complaint
  Defendants filed motions to stay discovery and to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 85), with responses due by this date. Plaintiffs also filed responses to the motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery, with replies due by 2025-06-05.

• 2026-03-30: Motion to Dismiss Patent Claims Granted
  The court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 156).

• 2026-04-06: Amended Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Patent Claims
  An amended order was signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva, formally granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the patent infringement claims (ECF No. 156). The court found the asserted patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, concluding they were directed to unpatentable abstract ideas without an inventive concept. This dismissal was without prejudice, allowing leave to amend. The order also mandated the parties file a joint status report addressing arbitration by April 30, 2026.

• 2026-04-30: Joint Status Report on Arbitration Due
  As per the amended dismissal order, the parties were required to file a joint status report regarding the arbitration proceedings.

• 2026-11-30: Future Joint Status Report on Arbitration
  Another joint status report addressing arbitration is due by this date or within seven days of the arbitration tribunal's decision, whichever is earlier.

Outcome:
The patent infringement claims have been dismissed by the District Court on grounds of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, with leave to amend. The trade secret misappropriation claims have been compelled to arbitration and are currently stayed in the federal court pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Light & Wonder, Inc. has filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US Patent 10,629,024, identified as IPR2025-01072. The petition references related filings from the district court case, including a motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff(s), Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, SIA Evolution Latvia, and Uplay1, are represented by attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP and Spencer Fane LLP.

Here is the breakdown of their counsel:

Sidley Austin LLP

• Ching-Lee Fukuda
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm and Office Location: Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Ching-Lee Fukuda is a partner at Sidley Austin and focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent disputes across various technologies, including software, electronics, and medical devices.
• Sharon Lee
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm and Office Location: Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Sharon Lee is a partner in Sidley's Intellectual Property practice, with experience in patent litigation, patent office proceedings, and intellectual property due diligence.
• Joshua J. Fougere
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm and Office Location: Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Joshua Fougere is a partner at Sidley Austin, focusing on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.
• Thomas A. Broughan, III
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm and Office Location: Sidley Austin LLP (Office location not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but typically found on firm's website. Likely one of the offices listed for Sidley.)
  • Experience Note: Thomas Broughan III is a partner in Sidley’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, with a focus on patent and trade secret disputes.
• Morgan R. Mendicino
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm and Office Location: Sidley Austin LLP (Office location not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but typically one of the offices listed for Sidley.)
  • Experience Note: Morgan Mendicino is an attorney in Sidley's Intellectual Property practice, involved in patent and other IP litigation matters.
• Elizabeth McLean
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm and Office Location: Sidley Austin LLP (Office location not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but typically one of the offices listed for Sidley.)
  • Experience Note: Elizabeth McLean is an attorney at Sidley Austin, whose practice includes intellectual property litigation.

Spencer Fane LLP

• Nicholas J. Santoro
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Spencer Fane LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Experience Note: Nicholas Santoro is a partner at Spencer Fane with experience in complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.
• Jason D. Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Spencer Fane LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Experience Note: Jason Smith is a partner at Spencer Fane, focusing on commercial litigation and intellectual property matters.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendants, Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., in Evolution Malta Limited et al. v. Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.:

Lead Counsel (Sidley Austin LLP)

• Ching-Lee Fukuda (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Her practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright disputes, particularly in the technology and life sciences sectors.
• Elizabeth McLean (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Specializes in patent litigation and intellectual property disputes, representing clients in various technology-driven industries.
• Joshua J. Fougere (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C. (assumed, needs verification)
  • Experience: Represents clients in complex intellectual property and patent litigation, including before the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Morgan R. Mendicino (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Focuses on patent and other intellectual property litigation, particularly in technology-related fields.
• Sharon Lee (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Her practice includes intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret matters.
• Thomas A. Broughan, III (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, New York, New York (assumed, needs verification)
  • Experience: Active in patent litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB, representing clients in various industries.

Local Counsel (Spencer Fane LLP)

• Jason D. Smith (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada (assumed, based on typical local counsel roles in District of Nevada)
  • Experience: Experienced in commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes, often serving as local counsel in Nevada federal courts.
• Nicholas J Santoro (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Spencer Fane LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada (assumed, based on typical local counsel roles in District of Nevada)
  • Experience: Focuses on litigation, including business disputes and intellectual property matters, in the District of Nevada.

In-House Counsel

• Sue Dawson (Chief Legal Officer)
  • Company: Light & Wonder, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada (Corporate Headquarters)
  • Experience: Serves as the Chief Legal Officer for Light & Wonder, overseeing the company's legal, compliance, information security, and government relations functions with over 25 years of gaming industry experience.