Bally Settles IGT Suit Over Slot-Machine Technology

Bally Technologies Inc. (BYI) settled a patent-infringement lawsuit brought by rival slot-machine maker International Game Technology over technology used in U.S. casinos.

Bally, based in Las Vegas, will get a license to IGT’s technology for monitoring slot-machine use to help decide which players deserve promotional bonuses, Mariya Barnes, an IGT spokeswoman, said today in a statement. Other terms of the settlement were confidential, she said.

Bally said today that sales in the quarter ended Sept. 30 rose 21 percent from a year earlier to $235.2 million, while operating income jumped 43 percent to $53.6 million. Gambling revenue at U.S. casinos climbed 6 percent to $23.8 billion through August, the American Gaming Association said this month.

Delaware, Indiana, Missouri and New Jersey registered declines, while Nevada, the biggest U.S. casino market, posted a 2.4 percent increase through July, the group said Oct. 2.

Mike Trask, a Bally spokesman, didn’t immediately return a call for comment on the IGT settlement today.

IGT, the world’s largest slot-machine maker, sued Bally in 2006 in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, seeking to block the use of Bally’s “Power Bonusing” system in casinos on the East Coast and in Nevada. IGT, based in Reno, Nevada, alleged that Bally infringed IGT’s “ACSC Power Winners” technology.

U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson ruled in 2009 that IGT’s patents on the slot-machine technology were valid and Bally had infringed them. She also ruled that Bally’s “SDS Power Winners,” “Power Bank” and “Power Promotions” technologies didn’t infringe IGT patents, IGT said at the time.

The case is International Game Technology (IGT) v. Bally Gaming, 06-282, U.S. District Court, Delaware (Wilmington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.