The ongoing legal battle between Aristocrat and Light & Wonder has a new development after a request from Aristocrat for an interlocutory injunction was rejected by the court in Australia.
The ruling means that the company’s Dragon Train slot machines will be able to remain across Australia, in spite of efforts for them to be removed from circulation.
Reasons for the decision of the Australian court were not made available or published.
This decision may have come as a surprise to the relevant parties, as it differs from the decision taken in Nevada during September last year, which saw the granting of an injunction and the subsequent order for Light & Wonder to remove the gaming machines in question.
However, the case in Nevada is still pending final ruling, yet a motion to dismiss the case by Light & Wonder was denied – meaning the case will proceed.
Although the decision at the time was celebrated by Aristocrat, who described it as “underscoring the value of intellectual property”, the case is still up in the air with charges yet to be determined or ruled upon.
Light & Wonder President and CEO Matt Wilson previously revealed that the firm is closing in on the creation of Dragon Train 2.0 machines.
He said: “Our intention is to build out Dragon Train 2.0 in compliance with the order and we’re working actively on this right now. It’s a very high priority for us and we’re working quickly to get that out.
“When you think about what’s in question here in this order, it’s really a small portion of the overall game that is Dragon Train, it’s just certain aspects of the maths that are being challenged.
“There are a lot of elements in this game that have made it successful. There’s the Dragon Train secondary Hold and Respin feature, the art, the sounds, the animation and the brand. These things are not affected by the order.”
Dinh Toan Tran, the designer of the game, also departed Light & Wonder at the end of last year.
Tran admitted that he had copied ‘a substantial amount of sensitive and valuable property onto a USB’. Nonetheless, he stated he had taken steps to delete the sensitive material during his notice period at the firm.
