Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Light & Wonder, Inc. (No 2)

This was an urgent interlocutory fight inside a much larger dispute between two major gaming machine suppliers. Aristocrat alleged that Light & Wonder's Dragon Train game had been developed using Aristocrat's confidential information, particularly mathematical design information connected to Aristocrat's highly successful Lightning Link and Dragon Link games. The broader proceeding also included copyright, employment, Corporations Act and Australian Consumer Law claims, but this hearing was narrower. At this stage, Aristocrat pressed only its confidential information case.

The commercial background mattered. The public extract says Dragon Link had been Aristocrat's leading gaming product since release, in Australia and overseas. It also says Dragon Train was launched in Australia in August 2023 and that many thousand machines were sold to hundreds of venues around Australia. Aristocrat argued that in a regulated market with limited machine turnover, each Dragon Train placement affected its addressable market for years, not just months.

The allegations were tied to former employees. Ms Charles had worked for Aristocrat and one of its design studios until 2017, and Mr Sefton had worked for Aristocrat until 2016. Both joined Light & Wonder in July 2021. Aristocrat alleged that Ms Charles took confidential materials when she left Aristocrat and later used them in designing Dragon Train. It also alleged that Mr Sefton retained Aristocrat artworks and that those materials were used in Dragon Train artwork.

The extract records several facts that gave the dispute commercial force. Light & Wonder had apparently tried from 2017 to compete with Dragon Link and Lightning Link by reverse engineering from public sources. Aristocrat's expert said that effort failed to reverse engineer the underlying mathematics. The extract also records that in July 2021 Ms Charles sent an email from her personal Gmail account to her Light & Wonder email containing Dragon Link base game reel strips. Later internal documents from July 2022 described an intention to develop a game that was effectively 'Lightning Link/Dragon Link with a twist' and to preserve as many important elements of Dragon Link as possible.

The immediate issue was not whether Aristocrat would win the whole case at trial. It was whether the Court should make additional mandatory interlocutory orders before trial. That distinction is important for business readers. Interlocutory hearings are often about urgent risk control and preserving positions, not final liability.

Before the hearing, Light & Wonder gave an open undertaking. In substance, it undertook to act in Australia on the basis that restraints reflected in a US order applied to its Australian conduct in relation to Aristocrat's alleged confidential information. The undertaking covered two broad areas. First, not using or disclosing Aristocrat's alleged confidential information relating to the mathematical design of Dragon Link or Lightning Link. Second, not accessing, transferring, copying, disseminating, modifying or destroying documents or materials reflecting that information, except as necessary for the litigation and related appeals.

Aristocrat did not criticise those undertakings so far as they restrained Light & Wonder's conduct in relation to the confidential information. But Aristocrat said there was another category of harm that the undertakings did not address. It argued that Dragon Train remained in the market and continued to affect placements, revenue and competitive position. So Aristocrat sought broader mandatory orders aimed at customer-facing arrangements.

Specifically, Aristocrat asked the Court to order Light & Wonder, within 30 days and until further order, to withdraw any licence or authorisation to use Dragon Train software under customer agreements executed before 23 September 2024. It also sought an order requiring Light & Wonder to notify Australian customers in writing that Aristocrat alleged Dragon Train software contained and was created using Aristocrat confidential information without consent, that Light & Wonder disputed that allegation, and that the Federal Court had ordered withdrawal of licences pending final hearing.

In practical terms, Aristocrat wanted the Court to move beyond restraining internal use or disclosure and into the operation of existing customer arrangements. That is a much more intrusive form of interim relief.

The legal question was whether the Federal Court should grant the additional mandatory interlocutory orders sought by Aristocrat. The public extract expressly refers to the High Court framework in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill. That framework asks whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether the applicant is likely to suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and whether the balance of convenience favours granting an injunction.

That meant the Court was not only looking at the strength of Aristocrat's confidential information case. It also had to consider whether the specific orders sought were justified in the circumstances. Mandatory orders, especially those that require a party to take positive steps affecting customers or products already in the market, are often treated with particular caution because they can be difficult to reverse and may affect people who are not before the Court.

The extract shows that Aristocrat argued it had a strong prima facie case. It relied on expert evidence and submitted that certain Dragon Train mathematics spreadsheets could not have been independently created without reference to Aristocrat's confidential information. The extract says that submission was supported by the evidence and not disputed in the interlocutory application by Light & Wonder. Aristocrat also argued that damages would not be adequate because Dragon Train was affecting market share in a regulated market with limited turnover, and because the impact on the value proposition and saleability of Aristocrat's leading products was difficult to quantify.

Light & Wonder's response focused heavily on the nature of the relief sought. It argued that the undertakings already offered were adequate to address the interlocutory risk. It also argued that Aristocrat might not obtain equivalent final relief, particularly if that would interfere with third-party customers who had acquired machines and were not alleged to have misused confidential information. Light & Wonder said its customer contracts did not provide a basis to withdraw or suspend the relevant software licence, that title to the machines had passed, and that customers would suffer significant financial loss if licences were removed.

Another issue was joinder. Light & Wonder argued that customers such as clubs, pubs and other venues were proper parties to the interlocutory application because the proposed orders would affect their use of installed machines. It said those customers should be joined and allowed to be heard on contractual issues and the balance of convenience. The catchwords confirm that whether joinder of third parties was required was one of the issues in play.

The formal outcome is clear. Burley J ordered that Aristocrat's application for interlocutory relief be refused. Costs were reserved, and the proceeding was listed for case management on 20 March 2025. The Court also ordered that the reasons for judgment not be disclosed or published beyond the parties, their legal representatives and Court staff until further order, with a process for proposed redactions.

The catchwords are especially important because the publicly available reasons are incomplete. They state: confidential information, serious question to be tried, undertakings not to disclose or use impugned devices given, whether additional mandatory orders affecting third parties warranted, whether joinder of third parties required, balance of convenience, additional orders refused.

That tells business readers several things. First, the refusal was not framed as a rejection of the whole confidential information case. The catchwords indicate there was a serious question to be tried. Second, the existence of undertakings already restraining use and disclosure mattered. Third, the Court treated the proposed additional orders as orders affecting third parties. Fourth, the balance of convenience did not favour making those broader orders at this stage.

Because the full reasons were not publicly available, it is sensible to be careful about over-reading the decision. But on the public material, the refusal appears to be about the limits of appropriate interim relief rather than a final vindication of Light & Wonder's conduct. The Court had narrower restraints already in place through undertakings. Aristocrat wanted more: withdrawal of customer licences and customer notifications. The public extract shows that those extra steps raised questions about third-party impact, contractual footing, joinder and practical enforcement. Those issues were enough for the Court to refuse the additional orders.

This case is useful for any business that depends on confidential know-how, not just gaming businesses. The confidential information here was said to involve mathematical design information, spreadsheets, worksheets and related materials. In other industries, the equivalent assets might be source code, pricing models, recipes, manufacturing tolerances, customer data structures, product roadmaps, algorithms, design files or internal playbooks. If those materials move with an employee to a competitor, the dispute can become urgent very quickly.

The first practical lesson is that courts separate the merits of a claim from the scope of interim relief. A business may show a serious question to be tried and still fail to obtain the most disruptive orders it wants. If your goal is to stop use or disclosure of confidential information, that may be easier to frame and justify than orders that unwind customer arrangements, force product withdrawal or require customer communications before trial.

The second lesson is that undertakings can be strategically important. If you are accused of misusing confidential information, a carefully framed undertaking may reduce the need for broader interlocutory orders. But it is not a free pass. The substantive case continues, and the undertaking may shape the court's view of urgency and convenience rather than determine final rights.

The third lesson is about documents and conduct. The public extract repeatedly points to documentary evidence: internal strategy documents, emails, discovery material, expert analysis and the absence of explanatory evidence from a key employee. In confidential information disputes, the paper trail often drives the case. Businesses should assume that onboarding records, access logs, version histories, design notes, internal messages and customer contract terms may all become central evidence.

The fourth lesson is to think about customer contracts before a dispute starts. One reason the proposed orders were contested was that Light & Wonder said there was no contractual basis to withdraw or suspend the relevant licences after title had passed to customers. If your business licenses software or embedded technology, your contracts should clearly address updates, replacements, suspension rights, compliance issues and what happens if a product becomes legally contentious.

The fifth lesson is to act early. Aristocrat had already pursued preliminary discovery in Australia and there had been related US proceedings. Delay can affect both commercial leverage and the court's assessment of convenience. If you suspect misuse of confidential information, preserve evidence, identify the exact information said to be confidential, and consider what interim relief is realistically necessary. If you are on the receiving end of an allegation, preserve evidence immediately and avoid steps that could worsen the position.

The judgment is dated 7 February 2025. The public orders show that the interlocutory application was refused, costs were reserved, and the matter was listed for case management on 20 March 2025. The Court also imposed confidentiality restrictions over the reasons and set a timetable for the parties to propose redactions.

That procedural setting matters because it explains why the public account of the reasoning is limited. The available material includes the orders, catchwords, introductory sections and part of the reasons, but not the full publicly released reasons. As a result, this page focuses on what can be said confidently from the public orders and extract: the nature of the dispute, the relief sought, the undertakings given, the issues identified by the Court, and the interlocutory outcome.

This page is based on the Federal Court decision Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Light & Wonder, Inc. (No 2) [2025] FCA 64, judgment of Burley J dated 7 February 2025, together with the public orders, catchwords and available extract of the reasons. The orders themselves state that the reasons were not to be disclosed or published beyond the parties, their legal representatives and Court staff until further order, subject to a redaction process.

The extract also refers to related Australian preliminary discovery proceedings in 2024 and related US preliminary injunction proceedings in September 2024. Those references help explain the commercial and procedural background, but this page is focused on the Australian interlocutory decision and what it means in practice for businesses dealing with confidential information disputes.