Light & Wonder to pay Aristocrat $127.5M to settle trade secrets case | Yogonet International
Summary
Australian manufacturer Aristocrat and Las Vegas-based supplier Light & Wonder (L&W) have reached a settlement in their intellectual property dispute. L&W will pay A$190 million (US$127.5 million) to Aristocrat to resolve claims that L&W misappropriated trade secrets and used Aristocrat math models when developing the games Dragon Train and Jewel of the Dragon.
Under the agreement, L&W acknowledged that certain Aristocrat math information was used in connection with those titles, agreed to permanently cease commercialisation of the two games globally, will make best efforts to remove existing installations, and will not use the Aristocrat math information further. The companies say the settlement ends litigation in Nevada and Sydney.
Key Points
- Light & Wonder agreed to pay A$190 million (US$127.5 million) to Aristocrat to settle trade secrets and IP claims.
- L&W acknowledged use of certain Aristocrat mathematical information in developing Dragon Train and Jewel of the Dragon.
- Both disputed games will be permanently removed from the market and L&W will attempt to remove existing installations.
- The settlement resolves related court actions in Nevada and Sydney, after a 2024 preliminary injunction found misappropriation ‘extremely likely’.
- Dragon Train had been released in Australia in 2023 and in the US in March 2024; it represented roughly 2,200 units (mid-single-digit percentage of L&W’s ~33,000 leased units).
- L&W said the matter stemmed from a former employee’s inappropriate use of Aristocrat math; the company has created confidential procedures to audit other ‘hold and spin’ titles for similar issues.
- Aristocrat emphasised its intent to defend IP rights; L&W earlier described the complaint as ‘baseless’ and argued some models were publicly available.
Context and relevance
This settlement highlights growing scrutiny on intellectual property and proprietary math models in the gaming industry. For suppliers, operators and regulators, it underscores risks around staff moves between rivals, handling of proprietary game math, and the potential operational and financial fallout when titles must be pulled from venues. It also shows courts are willing to grant strong relief where trade-secret misuse is alleged, and that high-value settlements can follow preliminary rulings.
Why should I read this?
Quick take: big name companies, big money, and games getting pulled — if you work in gaming, this is one to pay attention to. It affects supply chains, product availability on casino floors, and how seriously firms will now police former employees and proprietary math. Worth a read if you deal with supplier contracts, IP protection or operations planning — saves you the time of sifting through court filings.
