A Chicago jury slams Scientific Games Corp in a fake patent lawsuit

A Chicago jury handed down a $315 million judgment against a Las Vegas-based company. The verdict against Scientific Games Corp was for producing a superficial patent. The company’s hit-or-miss efforts to control the market in its field has backfired. And in return, the jury handed out a $105 million each to several other companies in competition with SG Corp.

Furthermore, the fines are triple the amount under the United States competition laws. Which, are in place to protect consumers from predatory business practices. Such as the practice of this casino gaming equipment manufacturer. As a result of the damage, Scientific Games spokeswoman Susan Cartwright had a few words of her own.

“The jury reached a wrong verdict, and Scientific Games will seek an appeal.” So, we will see what happens next in the months to come.A Chicago jury slams Scientific Games Corp in a fake patent lawsuit

A history of several lawsuits and losses.

The lawsuit between the companies was first instantiated by Scientific Games in 2012. Which, they claimed that their competitor, Shuffle Tech used patented technology. As a result, Shuffle Tech and three other collaborating companies unified & responded back. In 2015, the 3 companies came together and filed a counter lawsuit against SG Corp. The trio band of companies won the lawsuit which brought them in a whopping $100 million. Now it looks like a 2015 repeat. As SG Corp continues to file bogus patent lawsuits in hopes of staving off all competition. Which, we now have learned doesn’t go so well for them. In 2017 Scientific Games put in a motion to have the judgment against the company dismissed. And as a result to that motion, it too was denied.

Justice in Chicago against unimproved Scientific Gaming Corp

The battered company insists that they didn’t try to deceive the patent office. Even though the courts have made their ruling against Scientific Games that they did, in fact, try to do so. And as a result, SG Corp remains in opposition to the ruling verdict. And not only once, but twice. Including a denied appeal. Let’s hope that the company learns a valuable lesson, or else we could once again be doing a three-peat of this story.