Update May 2010: Judge Sue L. Robinson, District of Delaware dismissed Bally’s antitrust counterclaims on the ground that successful patent litigation cannot give rise to antitrust liability. The case is currently pending appeal on the court’s conclusion that the patents were valid.
Update: The trial judge has certified its decision on the validity of IGT’s patents for inter-locutory appeal and stayed the trial pending the appellate court’s decision.
Bally’s antitrust counterclaim against IGT for attempted monopolization of certain casino game markets will proceed to trial in the District of Nevada. IGT had sued to enforce certain patents, and Bally counter-claimed that IGT was using its patent claims improperly in an attempt to monopolize. The court held that IGT’s patens were either invalid or not infringed, and permitted Bally’s counter-claim to proceed.