Paradise Entertainment to Appeal Macau Court Decision on LT Game IP Patents

Paradise Entertainment Limited is challenging a ruling by Macau’s Judicial Court of First Instance, which invalidated two electronic table game patents owned by its subsidiary, LT Game Limited. The case was brought against the defendants: Shuffle Master Asia Limited (Macau and Australia), Shuffle Master Inc., and SG Jogos Ásia S.A. Although the patents had allegedly met all formal registration criteria, the Court declared them null and void.

Paradise Entertainment Files Appeal about Macau Court’s Decision

Disagreeing with the Court’s reasoning, Paradise Entertainment has filed an appeal based on legal counsel. The company emphasized that safeguarding intellectual property is essential for innovation, business development, and maintaining confidence in the uniqueness of its products. While affirming its respect for the legal process, Paradise continues to assert the validity and significance of its patents within the industry.

“We firmly believe that protecting intellectual property rights is essential for fostering innovation, securing business development, and instilling confidence in our clients and society regarding the reliability and uniqueness of our innovative products,” Paradise Entertainment explained. “While we respect the judicial process, we strongly disagree with this decision and remain committed to defending our intellectual property rights.”

The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to cover the legal costs of the case. Observers suggest that the outcome of the appeal could influence how Macau’s courts approach gaming technology patent disputes in the future.

What Was the Issue that Started All of This?

Presiding Judge Chan Chi Weng ruled that the plaintiffs, Jay Chun, Natural Noble Limited, and LT Game Limited, had not met the necessary patent requirements in their attempt to enforce rights over two of their electronic table game (ETG) inventions. LT Game claimed that the defendants, Shuffle Master, had infringed on patents I/150 and I/380 through the use of their gaming machines, including “Rapid Baccarat” and “Rapid Table Game.” 

LT Game also argued that its patents effectively granted the company exclusive control over the live dealer market for multi-game terminals across Macau. In its lawsuit against Shuffle Master, the company sought injunctions, the removal of infringing equipment, termination of relevant contracts, compensation for damages, and public disclosures related to the alleged patent infringements.

Industry experts caution that the court’s ruling could have broader implications for future gaming technology patents in the region. The case has drawn attention to how Macau applies the concept of “inventive step” under its patent laws. Observers note that the decision may prompt companies to rethink their patent filing strategies and signal increased scrutiny of patent claims in gaming technology disputes.

The legal battle comes just as Macau operators are preparing for Golden Week, which runs from September 29 and October 6, and is expected to bring a record-breaking income to the territory.