Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Light & Wonder, Inc. (No 3)

This decision sits within a larger Federal Court dispute between Aristocrat and Light & Wonder in the electronic gaming machine industry. Aristocrat sued its competitor, Light & Wonder, and also sued Emma Jane Charles, who had previously worked for Aristocrat as a senior game designer and later became an employee of Light & Wonder.

The pleaded allegations were commercially significant. Aristocrat said it had built a substantial reputation in Australia in its Lightning Link and Dragon Link machines. It alleged that the gameplay of those products was driven by underlying mathematical designs recorded in tables, worksheets, spreadsheets and compilations. Aristocrat said those spreadsheets contained confidential information and were also original literary works protected by copyright.

Aristocrat then alleged that Light & Wonder’s Dragon Train and Jewel of the Dragon games were developed using that confidential information. It also alleged that Ms Charles obtained the information while working at Aristocrat and that Light & Wonder employed her to develop the competing games knowing she might use it, or being recklessly indifferent to that possibility.

That meant the dispute was not framed as a simple copyright case. The reasons record claims for breach of confidence, breach of contract, inducement of breach of contract, copyright infringement, contraventions of the Corporations Act and contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law. Light & Wonder and Ms Charles denied liability.

But this judgment did not decide who was right on those allegations. It was a case management decision about how the hearing should be run.

The reasons give a useful picture of the kinds of materials that can sit at the centre of a modern IP dispute. Aristocrat’s case focused on spreadsheets and related materials said to embody the mathematical design of its gaming products. The Court recorded Aristocrat’s allegation that these materials were both confidential and protected by copyright as literary works.

That matters because businesses sometimes assume spreadsheets, models, tables and internal compilations are merely operational documents. In litigation, they may be characterised very differently. Depending on the facts, they may be alleged to contain trade secrets, confidential know-how, copyright works, or all of these at once.

The conduct alleged also followed a familiar commercial pattern. A former employee moved from one competitor to another and then worked on products in a similar market. Aristocrat alleged that new spreadsheets were created in breach of confidence and then used to develop competing games. Whether those allegations are ultimately proved is a separate question, but the structure of the pleaded case shows how employee movement can become central to a product-development dispute.

The relief sought reflected that breadth. The reasons record claims not only for money, but also for declarations, injunctions, destruction or delivery up of materials, customer notification steps and conversion of gaming machines already placed with or sold to customers in Australia. That is a reminder that in confidential information and copyright disputes, the commercial risk can extend well beyond damages.

The question for Burley J was whether it was appropriate to make orders for separate determination of liability and quantum under rule 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). In practical terms, the issue was whether the Court should formally split the case so that liability was decided first and financial relief later.

Aristocrat had originally proposed that all issues relating to liability and the provision of declaratory and injunctive relief be heard and determined before issues going to the form and quantum of relief. Light & Wonder and Ms Charles opposed formal separation. Light & Wonder proposed an alternative structure: a hearing in two phases, but not formally separated, with a judgment after each phase and final orders only at the end of the second hearing.

By the time of further submissions dated 27 June 2025, Aristocrat no longer pressed its original bifurcation proposal and indicated it was content with Light & Wonder’s two-phase proposal, subject to two matters. First, the parties should confer on the issues for consideration during the first phase before evidence was served. Secondly, Aristocrat wanted the Court not to be precluded from making final orders after the first phase if the Court considered that appropriate. Light & Wonder agreed on the first matter but disputed the second.

The Court noted that in many intellectual property cases it is convenient to separate issues. But convenience in the abstract was not enough. The Court had to assess whether formal separation suited the nature of the relief actually sought in this proceeding.

Burley J declined to make an order for separate determination under rule 30.01. The Court’s stated reason was that, although separation is often convenient in IP matters, the breadth of equitable relief sought in this case militated against that course. The catchwords also record that there was a close relationship between the pecuniary and non-pecuniary relief sought, making formal separation unsuitable to the nature of the relief claimed.

Instead, the Court used its case management power under s 37P(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to direct that evidence be heard in two tranches. Tranche 1 was to cover all issues other than Tranche 2 evidence. Tranche 2 evidence was defined to include expert or lay evidence dealing with accounting issues, valuation issues or financial matters relating to the quantum of damages or an account of profits, and evidence relating to the rate or quantum of any notional or reasonable royalty.

The Court ordered that Tranche 1 evidence be heard first and that findings on issues arising from that evidence be given in reasons for judgment published before the hearing of Tranche 2 evidence. Tranche 2 would then be heard after publication of the Tranche 1 reasons, with programming to be set at a later case management hearing.

Importantly, the Court also made clear that no final orders would be made until after reasons for judgment in relation to Tranche 2 evidence had been published. At that point, final orders would be made on all issues. So the Court adopted a staged process, but not a formal legal separation of issues under rule 30.01.

The orders also dealt with practical case management matters. They required the parties to liaise and prepare a list identifying with particularity the issues arising out of the Tranche 1 evidence for written submissions and for the Court’s reasons before Tranche 2. The Court set a provisional three-week listing for the hearing of Tranche 1 evidence from 29 June 2026 to 17 July 2026. It extended the time for Aristocrat to file any reply, amended dates for further and better particulars concerning alleged confidential information connected with Jewel of the Dragon, amended discovery dates, listed a case management hearing for 8 August 2025, and vacated certain earlier orders.

There are several practical points to take from this decision.

First, procedure can materially affect commercial risk. Businesses often focus on the ultimate merits question: did copying happen, was confidential information used, was a contract breached? Those questions remain central, but the way a Court structures the hearing can shape the dispute long before final liability is decided. A two-tranche process can affect when experts are engaged, what evidence must be prepared first, how much is spent early, and when settlement pressure intensifies.

Secondly, the remedies sought in IP and confidential information cases can be operational, not just financial. The pleaded relief here included injunctions, destruction or delivery up, customer communications and conversion of products already in the market. For many businesses, especially those with deployed software, hardware, gaming, SaaS or data-driven products, that kind of relief may be more disruptive than damages.

Thirdly, the employee movement aspect is commercially familiar. If you hire someone from a competitor into a product-development role, your risk management should not stop at a signed employment contract. You should have onboarding protocols that prohibit bringing prior employer materials, clear instructions about confidential information, and records showing independent development. If your product overlaps with a rival’s offering, document your design pathway carefully.

Finally, this judgment should be read with restraint. It is not a merits ruling. It does not prove the pleaded allegations against Light & Wonder or Ms Charles. It shows only that the Court considered the nature of the claims and relief broad enough that a staged hearing was preferable to formal separation. The reasons also refer back to an earlier related judgment for background, so this decision is best understood as one procedural step in a larger case.

The judgment was delivered on 7 July 2025 and was determined on the papers. It is identified as Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Light & Wonder, Inc. (No 3) [2025] FCA 775.

The orders set a provisional hearing window for Tranche 1 evidence from 29 June 2026 to 17 July 2026, with an estimate of three weeks. The matter was also listed for a case management hearing on 8 August 2025. Other dates in the orders dealt with replies, particulars and discovery steps.

This remains a procedural snapshot within a larger dispute. The reasons expressly refer back to an earlier related judgment for background. Readers looking for the full commercial and procedural context should treat this page as an explanation of the hearing structure decision, not as a complete account of the whole proceeding.