Scientific Games Corporation agrees $151.5 million Payoff

American lottery and gaming machines innovator, Scientific Games Corporation, has announced that it has agreed to pay $151.5 million in compensatory damages to Shuffle Tech International LLC along with a trio of different plaintiffs so as to settle an anti-trust lawsuit.

Reduced penalty:

The Las Vegas-headquartered firm used a formal Thursday press release (pdf) to explain that the payment represents roughly 45 percent of an original $335 million invoice it incurred after losing a lawsuit in August brought by Shuffle Tech International LLC and its own DigiDeal Corporation, Poydras-Talrick Holdings LLC and Aces Up Gaming Incorporated partners.

The initial dispute dates back to 2012 when Chicago-based Shuffle Tech awakened with its fellow plaintiffs to establish an automatic card shuffler that was made to compete with comparable components made by Scientific Games Corporation. The industry giant then surfaced by filing a patent infringement actions that alleged that the new innovation had utilized its protected technology without authorization.

The four companies responded three decades later via an anti-trust lawsuit that claimed Scientific Games was planning to control the automatic card shuffler marketplace by misleading the United States Patent and Trademark Office so as to obtain an overly wide range of patents. The consequent ten-day trial saw a Chicago jury agree and award the plaintiffs $105 million in compensation, which was automatically tripled to $315 million under present United States anti-trust legislation.

This penalty later grew to some $335 million following the addition of court costs and attorney fees while Scientific therefore agreed to settle without admitting any liability so long as the court entered an order vacating the initial ruling.

Developer ‘happy ’:

James Sottile (pictured), Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President for Scientific Games, declared that he’s ‘pleased with the outcome of the settlement’ even though holding a ‘firm’ perception that this summer’s court ruling was ‘incorrect. ’ He also declared that he anticipates that ‘this issue will be solved for good’ from the court currently entering the chronological arrangement so as to bring to a conclusion all ongoing and pending litigation associated with the lawsuit.