Supplier News
Macau – LT Game to appeal SHFL patent win
By Lewis - 22 July 2013
LT Game has confirmed that the company will be appealing the decision of the Macau First Instance Court in acquitting SHFL entertainment (Asia) following the complaint made by LT Game owner, Jay Chun, alleging a violation of a patent allegedly related to terminal betting on live baccarat.
Announcing the court victory, SHFL issued a statement from Ken Jolly, SHFL Macau’s Executive Vice President of Asia: “We are very pleased that the Court has found no patent infringement by SHFL Macau. We have consistently maintained that our Rapid Baccarat* solution does not infringe Mr. Chun’s patent. As a long-term member of Macau’s corporate gaming community, SHFL Macau has been committed to competitively serving the needs of our customers in this important market. Today’s positive ruling enables us to continue on that path with even greater focus.”
Today, in response to the court decision and the statement from SHFL, Jay Chun issued the following press announcement.
Patent infringement in Macau is purely a public crime, which means that such a claim may be independently prosecuted by the public prosecutor without the participation of any private party. A criminal indictment for patent infringement may be issued by the Public Prosecutor or the criminal court.
In the proceedings and the decision reached on July 19, 2013 by the Macau First Instance Court (Macau’s criminal trial court) on an indictment of infringement of the Patent I/150 issued by the criminal court, Jay Chun is not the plaintiff in the case, as may have been suggested by some media outlets. Mr. Chun only served as an “Assistant” to the Public Prosecutor because he is the inventor and owner of Patent I/150.
In its July 19, 2013 opinion and decision, the Macau Court found all elements of the Court’s indictment for infringement of Patent I/150 to be supported by the evidence except the element of willfulness, i.e., whether SHFL intentionally infringed the patent, as it determined it was not necessary to ascertain.
In its decision, the Court also held that the “Court cannot decide with certainty whether the components of the Rapid [Baccarat]* have functions, technical methods and results identical to the respective characteristics of [Patent I/]150” and nowhere in its opinion did the Court state that SHFL’s Rapid Baccarat does not infringe the Patent I/150. The Court’s stated uncertainty does not equate to a finding of non-infringement of Patent I/150.
Mr. Chun believes that SHFL’s Rapid Baccarat practices the claims of Patent I/150 by employing the same or substantially the same functionality, method/way, generating the same results. The decision of the Macau Court is not final and Mr. Chun, with all due respect and without prejudice, will be appealing the Court’s decision.
*Rapid Baccarat (now called SHFL Fusion Hybrid) is an electronic table configuration that combines a live dealer and electronic betting terminals. The system can accommodate handling multiple terminals on a live baccarat game and includes a user-friendly touch-screen betting interface. All wagers are reconciled automatically, resulting in greater productivity and enhanced security.
