Paradise Entertainment to Challenge Macau Court’s Decision on LT Game Patents
Paradise Entertainment Appeals Against Macau Court’s Patent Decision
Paradise Entertainment Limited is disputing a recent verdict from Macau’s Court of First Instance that invalidated two key electronic table game patents held by its subsidiary, LT Game Limited. The legal challenge involves defendants including Shuffle Master Asia Limited, Shuffle Master Inc., and SG Jogos Ásia S.A. Despite the patents satisfying all the formal filing requirements, the court declared them invalid.
Company Stands Firm in Protecting Intellectual Property
Rejecting the court’s findings, Paradise Entertainment has formally lodged an appeal with strong legal backing. The company stresses that intellectual property protection is crucial for promoting innovation, supporting business growth, and maintaining trust in the uniqueness of its products. While respecting the judicial process, Paradise continues to uphold the legitimacy and importance of its patents in the gaming industry.
A spokesperson from Paradise Entertainment stated, “We strongly believe that defending intellectual property rights drives innovation and business advancement, while reassuring our customers and the wider community of the originality and reliability of our products. Though we respect the court’s procedures, we cannot accept this decision and remain dedicated to upholding our patents.”
The court has also ordered the plaintiffs to bear the legal expenses, and experts suggest that the appeal’s outcome could set a significant precedent for how intellectual property disputes involving gaming technology are handled in Macau.
The Core Patent Dispute That Sparked the Case
Judge Chan Chi Weng determined that the patent holders—Jay Chun, Natural Noble Limited, and LT Game Limited—failed to fulfill the required patentability criteria in asserting rights over two electronic table game patents. LT Game contended that the defendants, including Shuffle Master, infringed on patents I/150 and I/380 through the use of certain gaming machines such as “Rapid Baccarat” and “Rapid Table Game.”
LT Game claimed that these patents granted them exclusive rights over the live dealer market for multi-game terminals in Macau. Their legal action sought injunctions to stop the alleged infringement, removal of the devices, contract termination, monetary compensation, and public acknowledgment of the unauthorized use.
Industry commentators warn that the court’s decision could have far-reaching effects on the approval and enforcement of gaming-related patents in the region. The ruling highlights Macau’s interpretation of the “inventive step” requirement in patent law, potentially prompting gaming companies to reconsider their patent applications and anticipate greater examination of patent claims.
This legal dispute arises as Macau’s casino operators prepare for Golden Week, occurring from September 29 to October 6, a period expected to generate record revenues for the region.
