In IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp. et al., Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Bally Gaming Inc.’s antitrust claim accusing International Game Technology of filing patent lawsuits to corner the market for spinning-wheel bonus game slot machines. The appeal stems from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by IGT, accusing Bally of violating certain slot-machine technology. Bally filed counterclaims alleging the lawsuit was an attempt by IGT to monopolize the wheel-game market by asserting patents the company knew were invalid and not infringed. At the trial level, the court dismissed Bally’s antitrust allegations on the grounds that Bally could not show that there exists a submarket for its specialized slots.
Federal Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Bally had failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the standard for establishing so-called “submarkets” set out in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Brown Shoe Co. v.U.S.. According to Brown Shoe, a submarket exists when several factors related to production, sale and price of a particular product distinguish it from the larger market. Federal Circuit Court further held that the undisputed facts in this case show that meaningful competition exists between wheel games and all gaming machines. And, according to the court, even viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to Bally, the Brown Shoe factors do not support a conclusion that wheel games should be considered a separate submarket.