The ongoing legal confrontation between Evolution and Light & Wonder has taken a significant turn as a Nevada federal court determined that specific elements of the case must be settled through arbitration, while allowing other claims to continue in court. The persistence shown by both parties indicates that this high-stakes dispute is far from over.
On September 30, Judge Cristina Silva of the US District Court made a pivotal decision by granting Light & Wonder’s motion to compel arbitration specifically for Evolution’s trade secret claims. This decision was based on an arbitration clause embedded in a 2021 licensing agreement between the two companies. Nevertheless, Judge Silva ruled that Evolution’s patent infringement claims would remain within the purview of the court.
At the heart of the dispute lies a licensing agreement that awarded Light & Wonder exclusive rights to create a physical version of Evolution’s popular game, Lightning Roulette, for land-based casinos. Evolution has accused Light & Wonder of overstepping the boundaries of this agreement by allegedly using confidential information and proprietary technology to develop rival products.
Evolution’s amended complaint includes accusations related to what are referred to as the “Haushalter patents.” These patents cover gaming systems that are live-streamed and incorporate randomized multipliers. Also included are the “Merati patents,” which Evolution acquired through its 2024 acquisition of the hybrid gaming developer Uplay1. Alongside these patent issues, Evolution charges Light & Wonder with misappropriating trade secrets, contravening both federal laws and Nevada state statutes.
A report from Next.io highlighted Judge Silva’s determination that the trade secret allegations clearly fell within the arbitration clause outlined in the 2021 agreement. The clause stipulates that unresolved disputes via negotiation should be settled under the International Chamber of Commerce’s Rules of Arbitration, with the proceedings taking place in London.
In response, Evolution argued that disputes related to licensed property, which they assert should include trade secrets, were meant to be exempt from arbitration. However, the court disagreed, interpreting the carve-out as applicable only to intellectual property matters, which should be addressed according to the laws of the jurisdiction where the alleged infringement occurred, rather than being excluded from arbitration.
This decision results in a bifurcated process: arbitration will address the trade secret disputes, while the Nevada court continues to evaluate Evolution’s patent infringement claims. A status conference scheduled for October 30 will explore how the arbitration directive impacts the ongoing court proceedings. Despite this procedural clarity, the path to a final resolution remains lengthy and uncertain.
Industry analysts suggest that this division between arbitration and court proceedings is far from unusual in complex commercial disputes involving intellectual property and trade secrets. A sector observer noted, “Such dual-track resolutions are common in cases where parties have overlapping claims rooted in different legal grounds. Arbitration can provide a quicker resolution for certain claims, but doesn’t necessarily bring the entire dispute to a swifter conclusion.”
From the perspective of Light & Wonder, the arbitration route might offer a strategic advantage by potentially expediting a resolution on the trade secret claims, which could be less time-consuming and costly than a full court trial. An executive at Light & Wonder is reported to have expressed confidence in the arbitration process, viewing it as a step forward in addressing the core issues at hand.
Conversely, Evolution might perceive the continuation of court proceedings for its patent infringement claims as a means to assert its intellectual property rights more robustly. The company is likely hoping that the court will validate its allegations regarding the unauthorized use of its patented technologies, thereby reinforcing its market position and deterring further competitive infringements.
Nevertheless, the split decision poses challenges for both companies. While arbitration could deliver a quicker judgment on certain claims, it doesn’t necessarily resolve the overarching conflict that encompasses both trade secrets and patents. Moreover, the inherent confidentiality of arbitration might limit public scrutiny, potentially affecting perceptions of fairness and transparency in the outcome.
In the broader context of the gaming industry, this case underscores the complexity and high stakes involved in intellectual property and innovation-driven disputes. Both Evolution and Light & Wonder have significant interests in maintaining their competitive edge and protecting their technological advancements. As the industry continues to evolve with new technologies and gaming experiences, such legal confrontations are likely to become more frequent and complex.
The division between arbitration and court in this case might also prompt other companies in the sector to reevaluate their own contractual agreements and dispute resolution strategies. Ensuring clear and effective mechanisms for addressing potential conflicts could become an integral part of business operations, particularly for companies heavily reliant on intellectual property and proprietary technologies.
As the legal proceedings advance, industry stakeholders will be watching closely to assess the implications for future contract negotiations, collaboration agreements, and the protection of intellectual assets. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for resolving similar disputes within the gaming and broader technology sectors.
Garry Sputnim is a seasoned journalist and storyteller with over a decade of experience in the trenches of global news. With a keen eye for uncovering stories that resonate, Alex has reported from over 30 countries, bringing light to untold narratives and the human faces behind the headlines. Specializing in investigative journalism, Garry has a knack for technology and social justice issues, weaving compelling narratives that bridge tech and humanity. Outside the newsroom, Garry is an avid rock climber and podcast host, exploring stories of resilience and innovation.
