Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Light & Wonder, Inc

Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd brought an application against Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd for preliminary discovery. Aristocrat sought to obtain documents that it believed might contain confidential information or copyright works it had developed. The respondents argued against the application, contending that Aristocrat already had sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the order for preliminary discovery should be made and, if so, the extent of the discovery. The court found that the material voluntarily supplied by the respondents suggested that the design of the Dragon Train game may have used the applicant's confidential information, but did not disclose whether such material was actually used. The court held that Aristocrat was entitled to preliminary discovery of the mathematical rules, formulae and models used to create or implement the Dragon Train game. However, the court found no reasonable basis to believe that the respondents had copied or disclosed source code for Dragon Link or Lightning Link games. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the US proceeding showed Aristocrat had sufficient information to make its decision. The court concluded that the evidence relied on by Aristocrat did not show that it already had sufficient information.

The court made an order for preliminary discovery, directing the respondents to provide certain documents within 28 days. The documents included mathematical rules, formulae and models used to create or implement Dragon Train, any documents or material related to Dragon Link or Lightning Link copied or retained by former employees, and any documents created by former employees referring to Dragon Link or Lightning Link. The court also imposed confidentiality obligations on the parties receiving the documents, stipulating that the documents could only be used for the purposes of the proceeding and could not be disclosed to the public. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs unless it commenced a substantive proceeding within 60 days of the respondents complying with the order.