Evolution–Light & Wonder Dispute Splits Between Court and Arbitration

This development marks a new juncture in the long-running legal battle between the two companies as Evolution seeks to protect its intellectual propertyImage Source: Shutterstock.com

The high-profile legal battle between Evolution and Light & Wonder has reached a potential turning point after a Nevada federal court ruled that certain aspects of the dispute must be arbitratedwhile allowing other claims to proceed. With neither party willing to back down, this legal showdown shows no signs of subsiding.

Evolution Recently Reignited the Dispute

On September 30, US District JudgeCristina Silvagranted Light & Wonder’s motion to compel arbitration of Evolution’s trade secret claims. The court held that the claims were subject to an arbitration provisioncontained in a 2021 licensing agreement between the gaming giants. The Judge further ruled that Evolution’s patent infringement claims would remain in court.

The dispute centers on alicensing deal that granted Light & Wonder exclusive rights to develop a physical version of Evolution’s hit titleLightning Roulettefor land-based casinos. Evolution claims that Light & Wonder has gone beyond the scope of the agreement, using confidential information and proprietary technologyto develop competing products.

Evolution’s revised complaint includes allegations tied to the so-called “Haushalter patents,” covering live-streamed gaming systems with randomized multipliers, and the “Merati patents,” acquired through Evolution’s 2024 acquisition of hybrid gaming developer Uplay1. Along with its patent claims, Evolution accuses Light & Wonder oftrade secret misappropriation in violation of federal laws and Nevada state law.

A Final Resolution Remains a Long Way Away

According to a recent Next.io report, Judge Silva found that the trade secrets claims fell squarely within the arbitration clause of the 2021 Agreement between the two companies. The provision states that disputesunresolved by negotiation must be settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by three arbitrators, with London specified as the seat of arbitration.

Evolution argued that the contract carved out disputes relating to licensed property, which it contended should include trade secrets. The court disagreed, noting that the carve-out provided that only intellectual property matters should be governed by the laws of the territory where the IP infringement allegedly took place, and not that such disputes were exempt from arbitration.

The outcome creates asplit process: arbitration will handle the trade secrets allegations, while the Nevada court proceeds with its review of Evolution’s patent infringement claims. A status conference set for October 30will determine how the arbitration order affects the court proceedings. However, while significant, this development does not change the fact that a final resolution remains nowhere in sight.