Igt v. Alliance Gaming Corp.
702 F.3d 1338
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- IGT owns wheel-game patents and sued Bally for infringement; Bally asserted antitrust counterclaims.
- Bally began selling wheel games in 2002, becoming IGT’s primary wheel-game competitor.
- District court granted partial summary judgment on Bally’s antitrust counterclaims and assumed wheel games as the market for purposes of ruling; patent issues were decided separately.
- On appeal, this court affirmed the patent rulings, remanding for antitrust reconsideration; on remand the district court again ruled wheel games were not a relevant market.
- The court ultimately held, based on undisputed facts, that wheel games compete with all gaming machines and do not form a separate Brown Shoe submarket; summary judgment for Bally on antitrust claims was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wheel games constitute a relevant antitrust product market | IGT argues wheel games are distinct due to price effects | Bally contends wheel games show economic substitution | Wheel games are not a distinct market; they compete with all gaming machines. |
| Whether wheel games form a Brown Shoe submarket | IGT and Bally treat wheel games as distinct submarket | Brown Shoe factors not satisfied for wheel games as a submarket | Brown Shoe factors do not establish a separate submarket. |
| Whether disputed facts preclude summary judgment on the market definition | Facts show cross-elasticity and market separation | Evidence shows competition across gaming machines; no material submarket | No material facts preclude summary judgment; wheel games not a market. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962) (Brown Shoe factors for submarkets; production cross-elasticity considered)
- M.A.P. Oil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 691 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1982) (Definition of relevant market via cross-elasticity/interchangeability)
- Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (SSNIP applicability not binding; market definition considerations vary)
- Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) (Supply elasticity informs market definition; context of substitutes)
- United States v. Oracle Corp., 331 F.Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (Monopoly rents in differentiated markets; elasticity analysis considerations)