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

IPR2025-01072

Light & Wonder, Inc. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Evolution Malta Limited regarding roulette wagering systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation grounds (102) and key claim constructions.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01072
Judge(s)
ROBERT L. KINDER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, FREDERICK C. LANEY
Decision Date
30 May 2025

Detailed Summary

The PTAB issued an institution decision favoring petitioner Light & Wonder, Inc., over patent owner Evolution Malta Limited concerning claims related to roulette wagering systems. The Board determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim, primarily based on anticipation grounds (102). A critical aspect of the decision involved the construction of the term 'payout,' which the Board broadly defined as 'an amount that is paid someone,' rejecting the patent owner's narrower interpretation. This finding allowed the Board to conclude that prior art disclosed all elements of the claims, including a progressive bonus mechanism featuring multiple payouts.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. vs Evolution Malta Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01339

FRESH PRODUCTS, LLCvsSANASTAR INC.

Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.

patentIPR2025-00322

Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.

Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.

patentIPR2025-01482

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies, LLC

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.

patentIPR2026-00109

Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, but the PTAB denied institution, finding the obviousness arguments insufficiently specific. The petition relied on Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski references, which the Board said did not adequately teach the claimed features.

patentIPR2025-00625

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsKAIFI LLC

KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call