1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

Alfred T. Giuliano as Liquidation Trustee for 

RIH Acquisitions NJ, LLC dba The Atlantic 

Club Casino Hotel and Rancho’s Club 

Casino, Inc. d/b/a Magnolia House Casino, 

on behalf of itself and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Scientific Games Corporation, a Nevada 

corporation, formerly a Delaware 

corporation;

Bally Technologies, Inc., d/b/a SHFL 

Entertainment or Shuffle Master,

a Nevada corporation; 

and

Bally Gaming, Inc., d/b/a Bally 

Technologies, f/k/a Bally Gaming and 

Systems, f/k/a SHFL Entertainment, Inc., 

f/k/a Shuffle Master, Inc., a Nevada 

corporation,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-05262 

Judge: John F. Kness

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Alfred T. Guiliano as Liquidation Trustee for RIH Acquisitions NJ, LLC dba The 

Atlantic Club Casino Hotel and Rancho’s Club Casino, Inc. d/b/a Magnolia House Casino 

(“Plaintiffs”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, brings this proposed class action and 

alleges as follows.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 1 of 41 PageID #:931
2

INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises out of the alleged monopolization of the market for automatic 

card shufflers used at casinos through Defendants’ abuse of the patent system and judicial process

to exclude and drive out competitors from the market. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that 

Defendants Scientific Games Corporation (“SGC”), Bally Technologies, Inc. (“BTI”) and Bally 

Gaming, Inc. (“BGI”) (collectively “Bally”), which manufacture and sell fully automated card 

shufflers under the Shuffle Master, DeckMate, and Bally names, procured patents by fraud and 

then asserted those patents in sham lawsuits against competitors, which effectively excluded 

competitors from the market and caused Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to pay more for 

automated card shufflers than they otherwise would have in a competitive market.1 Defendants’ 

alleged misconduct constitutes a violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 

2, 3).

2. Several of Defendants’ would-be competitors—other manufacturers and 

distributors of automated card shufflers—have sued Defendants alleging similar facts about 

Defendants’ effects to monopolize the market using fraudulently procured patents and sham 

litigation. In fact, in December of 2018, a Chicago jury rendered a verdict against Defendants for 

violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and awarded the competitor-plaintiffs $105 million in 

damages, which was then trebled for a total of $315 million. See Shuffle Tech, et al. v. Scientific 

Games Corp., No. 15-cv-3702 (N.D. Ill.) (“Shuffle Tech”). In another competitor suit alleging 

violations of Section 2, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently 

denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See TCS Inc., et al. v. Scientific Games Corp., No. 19-cv1846, 2020 WL 1678258 (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2020). This lawsuit will be referred to herein asthe 

1 SGC and Bally will be collectively referred to herein as “Defendants.”

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 2 of 41 PageID #:932
3

“TCS Litigation”.

3. As described further below, the market for automated card shufflers and related 

services is valued at approximately $100 million per year, and Defendants now control virtually 

100% of that market as a result of their misconduct.

4. Automated card shufflers play an important role in casinos and at card clubs. These 

machines are designed to produce reliably random shuffles to ensure fairness and increase game 

speed, profitability, and security. In many jurisdictions,shuffling by hand isillegal as well, making 

these machines a necessity. But the market is no longer competitive for these machines, allowing 

Defendants to set prices without fear of competitors undercutting them or stealing marketshare.

5. Plaintiffs, direct purchasers of automated card shufflers, and others like it have 

suffered as a result of Defendants’ monopolization and exclusion of competitors, forcing their 

direct customers—purchasers and lessees (collectively “direct purchasers”)—to pay 

supracompetitive prices for automated card shufflers while Defendants collect monopoly rents.

JURISDICTION

6. This action arises under the antitrust laws of the United States, specifically 

Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26) for violation of Sections 2 and 3 of 

the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3). This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 

action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 4, 15 and 26; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this state and district 

under 15 U.S.C. § 22; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1); the long-arm 

statutes of the State of Illinois; and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, 

because the Defendants regularly conduct and transact business in this state and district, have a 

regular and established business in this district, are “found” in this district, “reside” in this 

jurisdiction, have agents in this state and district, and have well more than “minimum contacts”

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 3 of 41 PageID #:933
4

with this state and district, all as further specified in the following paragraphs. Defendants have 

also committed acts violating the United States patent and antitrust laws in this state and district 

and have reaped the benefits of their unlawful activities in this district and the impact of those 

violations will be a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market for card shufflers 

in this district. Moreover, Defendants’ acts, both within and without of this district, have 

resulted in injury to each Plaintiff’s business and property.

8. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 22, and 26, and 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2), (c)(2), and (d) because, inter alia, Defendants reside in this district, 

inhabit this district, are found in this district, have an agent in this district and transact business 

in this district and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this state and district, and a substantial 

part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein arose in this state and district, as 

further detailed in the following paragraphs. In addition, key witnesses, such as Messrs. Kimball 

Anderson (“Anderson”) and Richard Schultz (“Schultz”), who reside in this district, would not 

be subject to the subpoena power of courts outside this district. Chicago is also more convenient 

for other key witnesses in the East and Midwest than other potential venues. Furthermore, key 

documents compiled and readily available in this district and subject to the subpoena power of 

this court may not be as easily obtained in other jurisdictions. Additionally, as a result of prior 

litigation in this court, the court is already familiar with many of the issues presented by this 

case. Defendants conduct business in this state and judicial district by, inter alia, distributing 

and/or selling card shufflers which are the subject of this action to casinos located in Joliet, 

Aurora, Elgin, and Des Plaines.

9. Defendant SGC also has a Chicago campus at 350 North Orleans St., Chicago IL 

60654 and has had a 483,000 square foot technology campus and administrative office in this

judicial district at 2718 Roscoe St., Chicago, IL 60018. SGC has employed over 700 employees 

in Chicago and has had over 1,000 employees in Northern Illinois. Additionally, SGC has had a 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 4 of 41 PageID #:934
5

long-term contract with the Illinois Gaming Board to design, implement, and administer a 

Central Communications System (“CCS”) for Illinois that provides real-time communication and 

control between every licensed video gaming terminal in Illinois, as well as day-to-day 

management of the operation and servicing of the CCS throughout Illinois.

10. On information and belief, Defendant BTI, under the direction of SGC, has sold 

card shufflers which have been manufactured by Defendant Bally Gaming, Inc. under the 

direction of SGC which are based on the patents at issue in this case (owned by BGI) to various 

casinos which are within the Northern District of Illinois and/or within the subpoena power of 

this court, i.e., Hollywood Casino (Joliet); Harrah's Joliet Casino & Hotel (Joliet); Hollywood 

Casino (Aurora); Grand Victoria Casino (Elgin); and Rivers Casino (Des Plaines). Defendants 

also conduct business with the Ameristar Casino in East Chicago and the Horseshoe Casino in 

Hammond.

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano as Liquidation Trustee for RIH Acquisitions NJ, LLC 

dba The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel, which was a New Jersey limited liability company founded 

in 2004. RIH Acquisitions NJ, LLC did business as the The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel, whose 

address was Boston On Pacific Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401. The Atlantic Club 

Casino Hotel had over 75,000 square feet of casino gaming space, including a substantial space 

dedicated to table games. During the class period, The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel purchased 

and/or leased substantial quantities of card shuffflers directly from one or more of the 

Defendants at supra-competitive prices and suffered injury to its business or property as a direct

or proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is aware of his obligation to 

diligently represent the best interests of the class and is committed to doing so throughout the 

pendency of this litigation.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 5 of 41 PageID #:935
6

12. Plaintiff Rancho’s Club Casino, Inc. d/b/a Magnolia House Casino is a 

California corporation with its principal place of business located at 1275 Folsom Blvd., Rancho 

Cordova, CA 95670. During the class period, Magnolia House Casino purchased and/or leased 

substantial quantities of card shufflers directly from one or more of the Defendants at supracompetitive prices and suffered injury to its business or property as a direct or proximate result 

of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is aware of its obligation to diligently represent the 

best interests of the class and is committed to doing so throughout the pendency of this litigation.

13. Defendant SGC is a corporation of the state of Nevada, formerly a corporation of 

Delaware, with a corporate office in Las Vegas, Nevada and an administrative and technology 

campus at 350 North Orleans St., Chicago IL, and was previously located at 2718 Roscoe St., 

Chicago, IL. SGC is a leading developer of technology-based products and services and 

associated content for the worldwide gaming, lottery, social and digital gaming industries. Its 

portfolio of revenue-generating activities primarily includes supplying gaming machines and 

game content, casino management systems, and table game products and services to licensed 

gaming entities; providing instant and draw-based lottery products, lottery systems and lottery 

content and services to lottery operators; providing social casino game solutions to retail 

consumers and regulated gaming entities, as applicable; and providing a comprehensive suite of 

digital real-money gaming and sports wagering solutions, distribution platforms, content, 

products and services.

14. SGC does business in this judicial district by, inter alia, distributing and/or selling 

under the Shuffle Master and/or Bally name, card shufflers which are the subject of this action to 

casinos located in Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, and Des Plaines. SGC has also previously had 

administrative offices and manufacturing facilities that support SGC’s gaming business in this 

judicial district at 800 S. Northpoint Road Blvd., Waukegan, IL. SGC controls and directs the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 6 of 41 PageID #:936
7

actions and operations of the other Defendants, including the authorization, maintenance and 

conduct of the sham litigation described herein, the conduct of the reexaminations described 

below, and the frauds perpetrated on the United States courts and the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “PTO”) and the courts and patent offices of other countries, 

notably South Africa, as further described below.

15. Defendant BTI is a corporation of the State of Nevada, with offices at 6650 S. El 

Camino Road, Las Vegas, NV. On November 25, 2013, BTI acquired all of the stock of SHFL 

Entertainment, Inc. f/k/a Shuffle Master, Inc., which was merged into BTI on June 30, 2014. 

SHFL Entertainment, Inc. was concurrently or thereafter dissolved as a separate corporate entity, 

although Defendants failed to advise the court of this fact and to substitute the proper corporate 

entity in at least one of the sham litigations described herein.

16. On November 21, 2014, SGC acquired Bally for $5.1 billion (including the 

refinancing of approximately $1.9 billion of existing Bally indebtedness). Bally’s financial 

records and data were thereafter consolidated with SGC’s on financial reports to the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Bally’s financial records and data have been consolidated 

for business purposes, and its revenues and funds have been commingled such that it is no longer 

possible, at least for the public, to separate or segregate Bally’s and SGC’s funds and revenuesin 

any meaningful way.

17. Subsequent to BTI’s acquisition of SHFL Entertainment, Inc. (f/k/a/ Shuffle 

Master Inc.) on Nov. 25, 2013, Bally, and after November 21, 2014, SGC began using “Shuffle 

Master” or “SHFL” as trade names and have sold or leased card shufflers based on the patents at 

issue in this case under the “Shuffle Master” or SHFL name, including to casinos within the 

Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, i.e., Hollywood Casino (Joliet); Harrah’s 

Joliet Casino & Hotel (Joliet); Hollywood Casino (Aurora); Grand Victoria Casino (Elgin); and 

Rivers Casino (Des Plaines). For these reasons and because Bally's automatic card shuffler 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 7 of 41 PageID #:937
8

business has been consistently known throughout the gaming industry by its former names

“Shuffle Master” and “SHFL Entertainment,” this Complaint will sometimes refer to SGC and/or 

the Bally Defendants collectively as “SHFL”.

18. Defendant BGI is or was a corporation of the State of Nevada, with offices 

located at 6650 S. El Camino Road, Las Vegas, NV 89118. BGI is or was a subsidiary of Bally 

Gaming International, Inc., which operates, or was operated, as a subsidiary of Alliance Holding 

Co., which operates, or was operated, as a subsidiary of Defendant Bally. BGI operates, under 

the direction of SGC management, as a manufacturer of equipment and games, including under 

the Shuffle Master or SHFL name, for casinos in the United States, including all five casinos 

within the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division), i.e., Hollywood Casino (Joliet), 

Harrah’s Joliet Casino & Hotel (Joliet), Hollywood Casino (Aurora), Grand Victoria Casino 

(Elgin), and Rivers Casino (Des Plaines). According to assignment records in the USPTO, BGI 

is also the owner of record of the patents described herein.

19. Since acquiring Bally on November 21, 2014, SGC has held itself out to the 

public as a single integrated entity, both financially and operationally. On Dec. 9, 2014, Bally 

filed with the SEC, a Form 15 providing notice of termination of its registration under section 

12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, essentially removing itself from the rolls of 

publicly traded entities, and began filing consolidated financial reports with the SEC, combining 

its financial data with that of SGC and its other wholly owned (or controlled) subsidiaries. As 

further documented by SGC’s August 7, 2015 10-Q filing for the period ending June 30, 2015, 

all of Bally’s and SHFL’s financial data has been combined with SGC’s. Separate financial 

statements have not been publicly available for Bally or SHFL as separate entities since that 

time.

20. SGC’s relationship with Bally far exceeds the normal scope of a parent/subsidiary 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 8 of 41 PageID #:938
9

relationship. SGC manages and directs Bally’s internal and external affairs and determines how 

Bally operates on a day-to-day basis. SGC’s August 7, 2015 SEC form 10-Q filing with the SEC 

states that its operations are divided into three business segments - Gaming, Lottery, and 

Interactive—along product lines, rather than corporate lines. Each segment is managed by a 

separate executive who reports directly to the SGC Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) who is 

described as the "chief operating decision maker" on SGC’s March 2015 Form 10-Q.

21. To implement its corporate integration, SGC formed an “Integration Management 

Office” led by SGC’s Chief Administrative Officer. By October 2015, SGC's website referred to 

“[t]he combined company” and that “[t]he combination of Scientific Games and Bally 

Technologies creates a premiere gaming and lottery entertainment and technology company . . .

.”2 By that date, no breakout information on Bally was available on either Bally’s website or 

SGC’s website (www.scientificgames.com). By October 2015, Bally was no longer a viable, 

operating entity, but a mere shell corporation through which SGC conducts its business.

Subsequent to that date, Bally’s operations, including those relevant to this case, were wholly 

directed by SGC and, to the extent Bally formally exists as a separate entity, it operates wholly 

as an agent of SGC.

22. As described above and hereafter, (1) SCG’s and Bally’s funds have been 

commingled; (2) SGC is treating Bally’s assets as its own; (3) Bally is governed and influenced 

by its alter ego, SGC, in particular, by the actions and directions of its chief executives and legal 

officers; (4) there is a unity of interest and ownership such that Bally and SGC are one and the 

same entity; and (5) adherence to the fiction that Shuffle Master, Bally, and SGC are separate 

entities would sanction a fraud on the Plaintiffs and the Court, promote injustice, and adversely 

affect the U.S. and worldwide markets for automatic card shufflers for casinos.

2 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientific-games-to-acquire-bally-technologies-in- transaction-valued-at-51-billion-269521831.html

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 9 of 41 PageID #:939
10

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Relevant Market

23. Since at least the early 20th century, casinos and card clubs have used machines to 

shuffle card-decks without human assistance and interference. These machines help reduce the 

labor associated with shuffling, as well as ensuring that there is more security and randomization 

associated with the shuffles.

24. By the 1990s, electronic card shuffler machines were introduced, controlled by an 

onboard computer and fully-automated. In those shufflers, the computer determined the final 

"random" or other intended order for the final set of cards and the cards were mechanically 

sorted into that intended order.

25. Automatic card shufflers can be used for virtually every card game on the casino 

floor, from public domain games such as blackjack and baccarat, to popular proprietary games 

such as Texas Hold ‘Em, Caribbean Stud, Three Card Poker, Three Card Baccarat, and Pai Gow 

Poker.

26. Casinos and card clubs, in particular, drive demand for these automatic card 

shufflers. The card shufflers assist the casino with minimizing labor and time spent on shuffling, 

reduce opportunity for cheating and collusion, and increase efficiency in the number of card 

games played, helping to bring in more guests and thus more revenue.

27. For the purpose of this complaint, the “relevant market” is the market in the 

United States for automatic card shuffler machines certified and approved for use by casinos, 

excluding card shufflers designed for private consumer use in unregulated environments and also

excluding electronic machines that randomize virtual “cards” in video-based games (hereafter, 

“automatic card shufflers”).

28. Upon information and belief, the market for these automated card shufflers and 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 10 of 41 PageID #:940
11

related services is valued at approximately $100 million per year. SHFL’s, Bally’s, and SGC’s 

annual revenues for these shufflers have exceeded $100,000,000 per year. Defendants have 

cumulatively earned over $1 billion in shuffler revenues through 2018.

29. There are no reasonable substitutes for automatic card shufflers for casino table 

games that use physical playing cards. Without an automatic card shuffler, the dealer must 

shuffle by hand. Hand-shuffling is prohibited by gaming regulators in some jurisdictions. It is 

also more expensive and less secure by introducing human error and interference.

30. The only other alternative to using automatic card shufflers is to use pre-shuffled 

cards, which can include either decks that are pre-shuffled in the backroom of a casino or

pre-shuffled decks provided by the playing card manufacturer. But neither of these alternatives 

are considered an adequate substitute for automatic card shuffling machines. Pre-shuffled cards 

can only be used for one hand of cards, after which an additional pack of pre-shuffled cards 

needs to be used or the used cards need to be shuffled by hand or by machine. These purported 

alternatives are both time-consuming and expensive. Additionally, security suffers from preshuffling. There have been several instances of cheating based on pre-shuffled cards that were 

not in fact randomly shuffled. Cheating can result in multi-million dollar losses for affected 

casinos.

31. Consequently, there are no reasonable substitutes or alternatives for automatic

card shufflers for casino table games that use physical playing cards, meaning that demand is 

inelastic for these products. Inelastic demand means that increases in price result in limited 

declines in quantity sold in the market. In other words, because the demand for automatic card 

shufflers is inelastic, sellers of automatic card shufflers—like the Defendants—can raise the 

prices of these shufflers above competitive levels without seeing a decline in sales revenue. It 

also means that entities like Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have no alternatives to use as 

substitutes for these machines to be able to avoid any supracompetive prices charged by 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 11 of 41 PageID #:941
12

Defendants.

32. Any potential competitor also faces high barriers to entry to enter the relevant 

market. The United States casino industry is highly regulated by multiple gaming regulators, 

including by the state and/or Indian reservations where the casinos are located. Such regulations 

include licensing of the vendors to casinos, including vendors of gaming machines and ancillary 

equipment, as well as testing and licensing of the gaming equipment itself. In the case of card 

shufflers, such regulations include character and financial investigations of the potential vendors 

as well as rigorous testing of the shuffling equipment, including for randomness, by certain 

states, such as Nevada, as well as by testing companies such as Gaming Laboratories 

International (“GLI”). In addition to such regulation and testing, equipment such as shuffling 

machines must be field tested by the individual casinos or casino chains contemplating lease or 

purchase of machines. As a result of all these factors, entry into the relevant market is extremely 

expensive, time-consuming, and risky.

33. Additionally, as described below, Defendants have erected other barriers to entry 

through their multitude of patents—which competitors have called a “patent thicket”— and 

which Defendants have historically used to keep out any and all would-be competitors, including 

through the use of patent fraud and sham litigation.

34. Fringe firms also cannot easily enter the market or increase productions if 

Defendants increase prices for their automatic card shufflers because of the technology involved 

in creating these machines and the multitude of patents they need to navigate.

35. Defendants have effectively achieved a 100% share in the relevant market and 

have achieved monopoly power in that market. Defendants’ market share and monopoly power 

in the relevant market have not been achieved by virtue of superior acumen, innovation, skill, 

foresight, or industry, or by the proper functioning of the market, or by natural market 

conditions. Instead, such monopoly power has been achieved as the result of purposeful abuse of 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 12 of 41 PageID #:942
13

the patent system and the judicial process by Bally and SGC and their predecessor entities. For 

more than a decade, Defendants have filed sham patent infringement lawsuits against every 

potential competitor that has marketed competitive card shufflers to casinos in the United States, 

leaving United States casinos and other direct purchasers with essentially no choice in automatic 

shufflers since at least 2009.

36. According to SHFL’s 2012 Annual Report (the last year that contained detailed 

shuffler sales and leasing information), as of the report date, SHFL had 8,285 SHFL shufflers on 

lease worldwide (primarily in the United States), with an average monthly lease of $451/unit, 

producing $44,838,420 in recurring revenue. That price has subsequently been increased by 

Defendants, after they successfully drove various competitors described below from the relevant 

market. According to SHFL, the majority of its leases are month-to-month and include shuffler 

service and support. Additionally, in 2012, SHFL sold 2,135 units at an average price of

$15,843, for total sales of $33,824,805. Once again, that sale price was further increased after 

SHFL drove competitors from the market. SHFL’s shuffler service revenue in 2012 was 

approximately $11,839,000 including monthly service fees for shufflers purchased and owned by

casinos. SHFL’s total utility segment revenue (excluding chipper sales) was $92,502,000 in 

2012, comprised of almost $34,000,000 in one-time sales (subject to ongoing support revenue) 

and $59,000,000 in recurring revenue.

B. Defendants’ Sham Litigation

1. CARD Litigation

37. In 2003, the manufacturer of another automatic card shuffler, Casinos Austria 

Research Development, GmbH. (“CARD”) and its United States subsidiary, filed suit seeking 

declaratory judgment of non-infringement CARD’s one2six shuffler of certain patents held by 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 13 of 41 PageID #:943
14

SHFL.3 SHFL counterclaimed several months later for infringement of those and additional 

patents

38. SHFL’s counterclaim was the start of a pattern of litigation and threatening of 

litigation to secure Defendants’ dominance and monopoly. Former SHFL General Counsel Jerry 

Smith (“Smith”) declared in SHFL’s lawsuit against then competitor CARD that: “... the mere 

showing of the [CARD] one2six has the potential ability to disrupt Shuffle Master’s order taking 

and sales process. It could confuse customers into believing that there is an alternative to Shuffle 

Master’s shufflers available to them.” CARD litigation, Decl. of Jerry Smith, ¶ 14, (Sept. 5, 

2003). Then and now, Defendants’ attitude was that no competition and no alternatives to its 

shufflers would be permitted in the relevant market. In fact, SHFL successfully obtained a 

preliminary injunction against CARD to prevent it from selling its automatic card shufflers in the 

United States.

39. CARD continued to pursue the litigation, however, and during discovery, a series 

of information came to light undermining SHFL’s patents and revealing its fraud on the USPTO. 

Among other things, documents produced in discovery revealed that certain of SHFL’s so-called 

inventions were in fact developed by another: Halvard Solberg (a.k.a. “Hal Solberg”) and his 

company, Machine Design Associates, Inc. in 1996-98 for Casino Concepts, Inc.

40. Specifically, CARD discovered that certain SHFL patents were based on Solberg’s 

“Roblejo Shuffler,” which was publically exhibited and operated at the 1997 World Gaming 

Congress and Expo in Las Vegas on October 14-16, 1997. The Roblejo Shuffler was 

demonstrated at the show with transparent sides that enabled anybody that visited the booth the 

see the internal workings of the shuffler. In addition to personally inspecting the Roblejo Shuffler 

3 A declaration of non-infringement refers to an application to the court for a declaration that a 

new business does not infringe an existing patent.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 14 of 41 PageID #:944
15

at the expo, SHFL representatives also obtained a Roblejo Shuffler brochure that showed and 

described the operation of the Roblejo Shuffler. CARD thus discovered that SHFL knowingly 

incorporated what it had learned about the Roblejo shuffler into its patent application and wrote 

and amended claims to include features that they knew SHFL had not invented and were instead 

known to be present in the prior art Roblejo shuffler. Furthermore, CARD discovered that SHFL 

intentionally concealed the Roblejo shuffler (including all the material information in their 

possession relating thereto, as described herein) from the PTO, despite the fact that all of this 

information was required to be disclosed under applicable rules and laws.44 Had that art not been 

concealed from the PTO, certain of SHFL’s patents would not have issued. More facts about 

SHFL’s illicit use and incorporation of technology from the Roblejo and related shufflers, as well 

as its illicit concealment of this prior art from its patent applications, are discussed in the 

following section.

41. CARD’s momentous discovery revelations did not stop SHFL, however, from 

continuing with the litigation and finding ways to punish its would-be competitor. At the time, 

CARD only had a few million dollars of sales, and the preliminary injunction prevented it from 

selling its core products in the United States. Thus, despite these significant discovery 

revelations, SHFL leveraged the situation to acquire CARD for $50,000,000, comprised of a

cash payment and 767,076 shares of the company’s common stock. This acquisition resulted in 

CARD exiting the market and SHFL avoiding the threat of competition. It also solidified 

SHFL’s monopoly position in the market and ensured that its casino customers would have no 

“alternative to Shuffle Master’s shufflers available to them,” thus achieving the goal set forth in 

4 USPTO guidelines specifically state that information material to patentability may include 

information learned from “co-workers, trade shows, communications from or with competitors, 

potential infringers, or other third parties.” MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING 

PROCEDURE § 2001.06 (8th ed., Aug. 2001).

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 15 of 41 PageID #:945
16

the September 2003 declaration of Smith.

42. SHFL in fact bragged about its sue-and-acquire strategy to the press. In a news 

article published in IBD on November 15, 2004, several months after SHFL acquired former 

competitor CARD and its competing One2Six card shuffler, SHFL’s former CEO, Mark 

Yoseloff, explained how he forced the distress sale of CARD, a company with a “terrific 

product” that he desired: “[s]o we had to create a situation where they would be induced to sell,” 

Yoseloff said. “It struck me that one way (to do that) was to sue them (and have them incur) 

legal fees sufficiently high even for a company the size of the parent.” This was one of the first 

cases of Defendants’ using sham litigation to secure and enforce their monopoly.

2. VendingData Litigation

43. Less than six months after the CARD litigation was finalized, on October 5, 2004, 

SHFL filed suit against its next target, VendingData. SHFL filed this suit one day after

VendingData announced the availability of its PokerOne automatic card shuffler. SHFL accused 

VendingData of allegedly infringing a child patent in the same Patent Family that CARD had 

previously demonstrated had been obtained through fraud on the PTO.

44. Initially, a preliminary injunction issued against VendingData, but during 

discovery, it was again learned that SHFL withheld the the Roblejo shuffler and other prior art 

(described below) from the PTO. VendingData eventually won its case on summary judgment of 

non-infringement, which ended the case in February 2008 after years of litigation. In the 

meantime, however, VendingData was forced out of business by early 2006 due to the 

overwhelming expense of the patent litigation and the impact of the preliminary injunction.

45. During the litigation, the aforementioned Anderson of the law firm of Winston & 

Strawn defended VendingData against SHFL. In representing VendingData, Anderson also 

concluded that, in addition to the patent misconduct, SHFL was engaging in illegal 

anticompetitive conduct including “patent abuse and other violations of the antitrust laws” and 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 16 of 41 PageID #:946
17

expressed to SHFL that he was considering filing an antitrust case against it. VendingData could 

not afford to pursue the antitrust case against SHFL, but to eliminate antitrust threats from 

Anderson, SHFL approached and hired him and Winston & Strawn to represent SHFL in future 

patent litigations thereby precluding the possibility that he or his firm could bring an antitrust 

case against SHFL.

46. SHFL’s misconduct only helped to further secure and strengthen its monopoly. In 

addition to Vending Data’s exist from the market, VendingData and its successor, Elixir Gaming 

Technologies, Inc. thereafter sold its shuffler business and its shuffler patents to SHFL for 

approximately $2.4 million and a seven year worldwide non-compete agreement, thereby

eliminating VendingData and its products from the shuffler market. The VendingData sham 

litigation thereby ultimately solidified SHFL’s monopoly over the relevant shuffler market.

47. Defendants first achieved complete monopolization of the relevant market on or 

around March 16, 2009, when SHFL, after suing and acquiring CARD, acquired the shuffler 

assets and patents of its only remaining competitor, VendingData.

3. The Taiwan Fulgent Sham Litigation

48. Defendants maintained their monopoly by suing other would-be competitors, 

alleging that such competitors infringed on their patents.

49. Indeed, in November 2009, SHFL sued Taiwan Fulgent Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

(“Taiwan Fulgent”). Taiwan Fulgent is a Taiwanese company that manufactured the “A Plus” 

series automatic card shufflers and has been producing innovative automated products for the 

gaming industry for over 30 years.

50. Taiwan Fulgent’s A Plus shufflers were significantly competitive products to 

SHFL’s automatic card shufflers. Among other things, the A Plus shufflers were advertised as 

increasing game speed and profitability as well as security by producing a non-traceable random 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 17 of 41 PageID #:947
18

shuffle that ensures fairness of the card games. The effectiveness of Taiwan Fulgent’s A Plus 

shufflers in producing a reliably random shuffle was certified by Gaming Laboratories 

International (“GLI”), an independent testing agency recognized by gaming regulators in most 

gaming jurisdictions around the world, as well as successfully passing the BMM Random Test. 

Additionally, the A Plus shuffler was and remains less expensive than the shufflers offered by 

Defendants and therefore constituted a substantial threat to the monopoly that Defendants 

established in the casino market for fully automated card shufflers. SHFL’s lawsuit against 

Taiwan Fulgent alleged infringement of several patents, including the patent that was shown in

the CARD litigation to be invalid over the Roblejo shuffler and obtained by fraud on the 

USPTO.

51. Faced with the overwhelming expense of patent litigation, and having no 

knowledge of the fraud perpetrated against it and the USPTO, Taiwan Fulgent elected to 

withdraw from the United States market and the case quickly settled in February 2010. The 

settlement required Taiwan Fulgent to stay out of the United States Shuffler market for 3 years 

and to make clear to any potential customer that saw the A Plus shuffler that it was not available 

to the United States market, thereby further solidifying SHFL’s monopoly over the relevant 

shuffler market.

4. TCS Sham Litigation

52. In September 2012, SHFL sued also TCS America, the United States subdistributor for Taiwan Fulgent’s A Plus shuffler. The suit was based solely on the registration to 

show the A Plus shuffler at the 2012 G2E show in Las Vegas. The suit alleged infringement of 

several patents, including the same patent that had been shown to be invalid and obtained by 

fraud on the PTO in the CARD litigation. Anderson, as SHFL counsel, also threatened to also sue 

TCS for infringing another patent if TCS continued to offer the A Plus shuffler in the United 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 18 of 41 PageID #:948
19

States.

53. To put additional pressure on TCS, Defendants also sued TCS for patent 

infringement in South Africa in August of 2012 based on a foreign counterpart of a patent 

asserted in the United States litigation against TCS. According to TCS, Anderson “overtly used 

the existence of the South Africa litigation as part of Defendants’ strategy to intimidate TCS into 

not competing in the U.S. market with the A Plus shuffler.”

54. Although Anderson and SHFL were aware of the foregoing sham litigations and 

rulings against them, unfortunately, TCS’s South Africa counsel was not. The South African court 

and TCS’s counsel also relied on the supposed expert testimony of a Mr. Attila Grauzer, who 

turned out to hold a position as the Vice President of Engineering, Utility Products at SHFL, 

Bally, and SGC during the South Africa litigation, in concluding that the asserted patents were 

valid and infringed by TCS. As a result of Defendants’ fraud on the South Africa court and TCS, 

the court entered a judgment and injunction against TCS, destroying TCS’s shuffler business in 

South Africa and further intimidating and hindering the TCS Plaintiffs from entering the United 

States market with the A Plus shuffler.

55. Faced with the expense of patent litigation in both the U.S. and South Africa, and 

still having no knowledge of the on-going fraud SHFL perpetrated on the PTO and the courts, 

TCS settled Defendants’ United States case in January 2013 by effectively withdrawing from the 

United States market. TCS’s exit only further solidified Defendants’ monopoly over the relevant 

shuffler market.

5. The DigiDeal Sham Litigation

56. Within a month of filing the TCS litigation, in October of 2012, SHFL filed the 

patent infringement case against DigiDeal Corporation (“DigiDeal”), the manufacturer of 

another competing shuffler known as the DigiShuffle. DigiDeal, a Spokane gaming equipment 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 19 of 41 PageID #:949
20

manufacturer, had a patent and technology license agreement with a Chicago company, Shuffle 

Tech International LLC (“Shuffle Tech”), which was the original manufacturer of the 

DigiShuffle.

57. DigiDeal displayed its DigiShuffle card shuffler for the first time at the 2012 

G2E show in Las Vegas on October 2-4, 2012. The proposed retail price for the DigiShuffle was

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 20 of 41 PageID #:950
21

$10,995, which was very similar to the retail price of the A Plus shuffler and far less than 

comparable shufflers sold by Defendants. The proposed monthly lease price of the DigiShuffle 

for casinos was $350/month. DigiShuffle’s sale and lease prices were far less than the SHFL 

DeckMate or DeckMate2, which respectively sold for $16,995 and $20,995, or leased for

$450/month or $525/month, respectively. DigiShuffle’s lower cost and simplicity of design was 

met with a positive market response and demand was considerable from the start. But, as in the 

case of the A Plus shuffler, SHFL again recognized the threat of a competitor’s improved 

technology and lower prices and immediately sought to evict the competition through sham 

litigation.

58. Once again, Anderson represented Defendants, including with the pre-filing 

investigation, which would have of course revealed that Defendants had concealed the extensive 

information they possessed on the Roblejo and related shufflers, and that the concealed prior art 

clearly anticipated the patent claims asserted against DigiDeal. Nonetheless, SHFL pursued the 

litigation again DigiDeal.

59. DigiDeal served document requests, which should have revealed the the 

information about SHFL’s appropriation of technology from Roblejo shuffler found at the 1997 

Expo and the extensive prior art information on the shufflers related to the Roblejo shuffler. But 

instead of properly producing the invalidating prior art information, Defendants improperly 

objected to the request as being, among other things, unduly burdensome. This is despite the fact 

that Jennifer Farrar, Defendants’ in-house patent attorney since December 1996 who worked 

closely with SHFL’s general counsel, Jerry Smith, kept this information in a file in her office 

from the 1997 Expo and had multiple copies of responsive information that she routinely used in 

filings with the PTO. By improperly concealing the prior art in discovery, Defendants prevented

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 21 of 41 PageID #:951
22

DigiDeal from effectively defending itself in the litigation, just as SHFL had done in the CARD 

litigation.

60. In the meantime, DigiDeal had initiated reexaminations on certain patents but 

because Defendants concealed the invalidating information, for example, the Roblejo Shuffler 

brochure published at the 1997 Expo, DigiDeal was unable to use any of that prior art to in the 

reexaminations. Meanwhile, Defendants’ infringement case against DigiDeal was stayed during 

the reexamination of those patents, and at Defendants’ insistence, the stay required DigiDeal to 

cease selling its DigiShuffle shuffler and to recall the shufflers it had already placed in the 

market, thereby destroying its business.

61. During the DigiDeal litigation, Shuffle Tech’s CEO, the aforementioned Schultz, 

conducted an in-depth investigation into the history of SHFL’s patents and the prior art and 

discovered that the disks SHFL filed in certain patent applications had been mislabeled; Schultz 

ordered the disks from the PTO and, in late 2014, after reviewing the disks, realized SHFL had 

been hiding prior art from the PTO, and therefore, had been engaging in sham litigation against 

its competitors for years.

62. Although the reexaminations were still pending, armed with this new information, 

on April 28, 2015, Shuffle Tech and the distributor and marketer of DigiShuffle, Aces Up 

Gaming, Inc. and Poydras-Talrick Holdings LLC, filed suit against Defendants alleging that their 

patents were invalid and that they nevertheless knowingly attempted to enforce them in violation 

of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the Lanham Act, and Illinois Law. The Complaint pointed out 

that Defendants had withheld the invalidating prior art shufflers and that Defendants and their 

attorneys were continuing to conceal the Roblejo shufflers and other related shufflers in pending 

reexaminations.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 22 of 41 PageID #:952
23

63. The Shuffle Tech case eventually went to trial, where the plaintiffs put on 

evidence about Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct and how they lost business as a result. 

They also presented evidence about how their competing shuffler, the DigiShuffle, was more 

reliable, cost less to build, and sold for half the price of Defendants’ shuffler. The jury found 

that Defendants’ had illegally monopolized the relevant shuffle market by using sham litigation

predicated on invalid patents obtained by fraud. The jury awarded $105 million in compensatory 

damages (automatically trebled to $315 million by the court). Judgment entered in that case on 

August 7, 2018 and the case thereafter settled on December 24, 2018.

64. Even with Shuffle Tech’s victory over Defendants, the litigation battle was still 

ultimately a success for Defendants and maintaining their control and monopoly power over the 

automatic card shuffler market. As Shultz said in reflecting on the litigation, “[b]eing a small 

company, we had the ability to develop a great product, but we didn’t have the ability to compete 

with a large corporation with those type of resources and defend ourselves against a sham 

lawsuit.”5 Today, Shuffle Tech only makes card shufflers for the consumer market. Shultz 

explained that Shuffle Tech was “basically put out of the gaming industry” as a result of the 

litigation.6 With the litigation battle causing Shuffle Tech’s effective exit from the automatic 

card shuffler market, Defendants’ have only solidified their monopoly power over this market.

6. Summary of Defendants’ Sham Litigation

65. As reflected in the allegations above, Defendants engaged in a pattern of suing 

would-be competitors to enforce patents that Defendant knew would not have issued had they not 

concealed the prior art from the USPTO. In other words, Defendants sought to enforce patents that 

they knew were invalid and unenforceable – and continued to pursue litigation against other 

5 https://www.casino.org/news/scientific-games-loses-antitrust-case-owes-competitors-315-

million/.

6 Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 23 of 41 PageID #:953
24

competitors even after the multiple rulings against them. No reasonable litigant could reasonably 

expect success on the merits of these lawsuits, but Defendants pursued them nevertheless because 

the threat of litigation and all the difficulties that come with litigation could be used to put pressure 

on competitors to sell their businesses to Defendants or to force them to exit the market and stop 

selling competitive shufflers. Defendants intentionally used these lawsuits to directly interfere with 

their competitors’ businesses and to grow and enforce Defendants’ monopoly over the automatic 

card shuffler market.

66. Now, in addition to the Shuffle Tech antitrust litigation, Taiwan Fulgent and TCS 

have sued Defendants for monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. As noted 

above, on March 20, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As described below, the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss 

is the TCS Litigation was the first time Plaintiffs discovered Defendants’ unlawful acts and 

Plaintiffs’ potential claim.

C. Defendants’ Fraud on the USPTO

67. As referenced above, Defendants have also abused the patent system by using 

fraud to obtain otherwise invalid patents. Specifically, Defendants obtained patents through 

knowing and willful fraud on the USPTO and then also maintained and enforced those patents 

although they knew the patents were invalid and unenforceable.

68. Defendants defrauded the PTO by intentionally omitting material referencesfrom 

the prosecution of several patents as well as the reexamination of those patents. Defendants’ 

patents at issue include, but at not limited to: (a) U.S. patent 6,149,154 on November 21, 2000; 

the ’154 patent was asserted by SHFL against CARD; (b) U.S. patent 6,588,750; the ’750 patent

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 24 of 41 PageID #:954
25

was also asserted against CARD; and (c) U.S. patent 6,655,684; the ’684 patent was asserted 

against VendingData; (d) U.S. patent 7,073,791, asserted against TCS; (e) U.S. patent 7,059,602, 

asserted against TCS; (f) U.S. patent 8,210,535; SHFL threatened TCS with an infringement suit 

based on the ‘535 patent; (g) U.S. patent 6,254,096, asserted against TCS; (h) U.S patent 

6,588,751, asserted against CARD and then subsequently against both Taiwan Fulgent and TCS; 

the ’751 patent was also later involved in reexamination proceedings based upon a request by 

Taiwan Fulgent; (i) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,255,344 and 7,322,576, were also asserted against Taiwan 

Fulgent; (j) U.S. patent 6,651,982, asserted against DigiDeal and subject to reexamination 

proceedings; (k) U.S. patent 7,523,935, also asserted against DigiDeal and subjected to 

reexamination proceedings; (l) U.S. patent 6,068,258, asserted against VendingData, and (m)

U.S. patent 6,325,373 asserted against VendingData; U.S. patent 6,139,014, asserted against 

CARD.

69. The material references that Defendants and their predessors omitted in their 

patent prosecutions and reexaminations are the existence of prior automatic shufflers: 

specifically, the Nicoletti shuffler (also referred to as the “1st Roblejo Prototype” or “Roblejo 

1”), the Roblejo shuffler, and the Luciano shuffler.

70. The Nicoletti shuffler was developed by Adolf Nicoletti in 1985 to 1989 and was 

built by Precision Automation, Inc. as an an automatic card shuffling machine for use with a card 

gaming table, such as a blackjack table in a casino. The Nicoletti Shuffler can be flush-mounted 

into a gaming table and has a card receiver for receiving a stack of unshuffled cards, a shuffling 

wheel with 16 individual compartments each designed to hold multiple cards, a first card mover 

that moves cards individually from the card receiver to the compartments, a second card mover 

that moves cards from the compartments to a second card receiver upon demand, and a processor

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 25 of 41 PageID #:955
26

programed to control the first and second card mover in order to randomly assign each card in 

the stack to a compartment and then output the cards from the compartments to provide a shuffle 

deck of cards. Each compartment in the wheel includes a wall with a beveled surface that helps 

prevent jamming of the cards when they are being inserted into the compartments by providing a 

deflecting surface that is contacted by the cards and alters the angle of the cards when entering 

the compartments. The Nicoletti shuffler also included sensors and software that counted and 

kept track of the number of cards in each compartment of the wheel at any given time.

71. The Nicoletti shuffler was publicly demonstrated at a Bally casino—specifically, 

Bally’s Park Place Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey—for approximately one week, starting 

on March 12, 1990. Various newspapers published stories about the Nicoletti shuffler that 

explained the structure and operation thereof and the details of the public demonstration at 

Bally’s Park Place. The Nicoletti shuffler was sold by Mr. Nicoletti’s company, We Are 21, Inc., 

to Casino Concepts around 1996.

72. The Roblejo shuffler (also referred to as the “2nd Roblejo Prototype” or “Roblejo

2” or “Sure Shuffler”) is a second generation of the Nicoletti shuffler, also for use with a card 

gaming table, developed around 1996. The internal structure and operation of the Roblejo 

shuffler was based on the earlier Nicoletti shuffler, but, unlike the Nicoletti shuffler, the Roblejo 

shuffler is designed to sit next to and be operated at the side of a gaming table. Like the Nicolleti 

shuffler, the Roblejo shuffler also included a card receiver for receiving a stack of unshuffled 

cards, a shuffling wheel having 16 individual compartments each designed to hold multiple 

cards, a first card mover that moves cards individually from the card receiver to the 

compartments, a second card mover that moves cards from the compartments to a second card 

receiver upon demand, and a processor programed to control the first and second card mover in

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 26 of 41 PageID #:956
27

order to randomly assign each card in the stack to a compartment and then output the cards from 

the compartments to provide a shuffled deck of cards. Each compartment in the wheel includes a 

wall with a beveled surface that helps prevent jamming of the cards when they are being inserted 

into the compartments by providing a deflecting surface that is contacted by the cards and alters 

the angle of the cards when entering the compartments. The Robejo shuffler also included 

sensors and software that counted and kept track of the number of cards in each compartment of 

the wheel at any given time.

73. U.S. patent 5,989,122 (the “Roblejo ‘122 patent”) is directed to and discloses an 

automatic card shuffler for table games. The Roblejo ‘122 patent issued on November 3, 1999, 

based on a patent application that was filed on January 3, 1997. The Roblejo ‘122 patent 

generally, but not completely, discloses various feature of the Roblejo shuffler, including the 

card receiver, first and second card movers, and the shuffling wheel with numerous 

compartments designed to hold multiple cards in each compartment, wherein each compartment 

includes a wall with a beveled surface that helps prevent jamming of the cards when they are 

being inserted into the compartments by providing a deflecting surface that is contacted by the 

cards and alters the angle of the cards when entering the compartments. These features are 

shown even more clearly in the Roblejo shuffler itself. The Roblejo patent does not disclose the 

feature of counting and keeping track of the number of cards in each compartment of the wheel 

at any given time.

74. The Roblejo Shuffler was publically exhibited and operated at the 1997 World 

Gaming Congress and Expo in Las Vegas on October 14-16, 1997.

75. At the 1997 Expo, SHFL representatives (including at least SHFL’s lead engineer 

of shuffler development, Attila Grauzer (“Grauzer”), and its in-house patent attorney,Jennifer

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 27 of 41 PageID #:957
28

Farrar (“Farrar”)) personally inspected the Roblejo shuffler and saw that its wheel had 

compartments designed to hold multiple cards and included the beveled surface. Indeed, the 

Roblejo Shuffler was demonstrated at the show with transparent sides that enabled anybody that 

visited the booth the see the internal workings of the shuffler, including the shuffling wheel with 

16 slots that were each designed to hold multiple cards per slot during shuffling, and the 

elements that moved the cards into and out of the slots in the wheel. SHFL representatives thus 

gained first-hand knowledge of the Roblejo shuffler’s structure, features and operation.

76. Moreover, at least Farrar and Grauzer also obtained a Roblejo shuffler brochure at 

the 1997 Expo, which shows and describes the operation of the Roblejo shuffler. Farrar, Grauzer 

and other SHFL representatives also met and obtained business cards from Conrad Roblejo and 

Stephen Gola (executives of Casino Concepts) during their visit to the Casino Concepts booth 

and inspection of the Roblejo shuffler at the 1997 Expo. Both Farrar and Grauzer (and others at 

SHFL) were also well aware that the Roblejo Shuffler brochure had been distributed to the 

public by at least October 1997, thereby constituting a prior art printed publication.

77. Farrar and Grauzer also both maintained copies of the Roblejo shuffler brochure 

and 1997 Report on Shuffler Competition in their personal files since 1997, which confirmed 

their inspection and their knowledge of the structure and operation of the Roblejo shuffler. 

Farrar also maintained in her department a formal collection of printed information and materials 

(including prior art brochures and other prior art information) on prior art shufflers, including on 

the Roblejo Shuffler, obtained from trade shows and the like, including the 1997 Expo.

78. The other relevant prior art relates to the Luciano shuffler, an automatic card 

shuffling machine for use with a card gaming table, such as a blackjack table in a casino. The 

Luciano shuffler was developed by Lawrence (Larry) Luciano and his company, Luciano

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 28 of 41 PageID #:958
29

Packaging Company, in 1992-1993. The shuffler was initially developed under contract for 

International Gaming Technology, Inc. (IGT) but later marketed directly by Luciano Packaging 

Company starting in 1993 after the IGT contract was canceled.

79. The Luciano shuffler is designed to be flush-mounted into a gaming table so that 

only the card input and output areas are visible on the table. The shuffler includes, inter alia, a 

first card receiver for receiving a stack of cards to be shuffled, a first card mover for moving 

cards into a shuffling wheel having a compartment for each card to be shuffled, and a second 

card mover for moving cards out of the wheel into a second card receiver. The wheel is 

controlled by a microprocessor that rotates the wheel to a random slot to deliver a random card 

that is output from the wheel, using an elevator arm with rollers, to a dealing shoe located above 

the surface of the table. The microprocessor uses input from sensors to count and keep track of 

the number of and identity of cards in the shuffling wheel at any given time during shuffling. 

Sensors and processing are also provided to sense when a predetermined number of cards are not 

present in an output area of the shuffler and, in response, to deliver additional cards to meet the 

minimum number desired.

80. A marketing video of the Luciano shuffler was made in 1993 in order to show the 

structure and operation thereof. The marketing video was distributed to numerous gaming 

companies in 1993 and 1994, including SHFL, in order to market the Luciano shuffler the 

relevant public.

81. Farrar and Grauzer knowingly incorporated what SHFL had learned about the 

aforementioned shufflers into SHFL’s patents and concealed this prior art from the USPTO. As 

reflected in the following examples, had Defendants not concealed this information from the 

USPTO, and had its examiners known of the prior art, Defendants’ aforementioned patents

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 29 of 41 PageID #:959
30

would not have issued. Similarly, no reasonable person would have attempted to enforce these 

patents, which upon any reasonable investigation, would have been determined to be invalid and 

unenforceable.

82. For example, in the ‘096 patent application, Farrar and Grauzer claimed features 

that they knew SHFL had not invented and were instead known to be present in the prior art, the 

Roblejo Shuffler. There was also no excuse for SHFL to have withheld the critical information it 

had learned at the 1997 Expo relating to the Roblejo Shuffler, including the fact that the wheel, 

disclosed and seen by SHFL (including at least Grauzer, Farrar and other SHFL representatives) 

at the 1997 Expo, had compartments designed to hold multiple cards and included the beveled 

surface as claimed. All of this information was required to be disclosed under applicable rules 

and laws. The ‘096 patent would not have issued had the prior art not been intentionally 

concealed from the Examiner by SHFL and its representatives.

83. Likewise, SHFL (including Farrar and Grauzer) intentionally concealed the 

Roblejo Shuffler order to obtain allowance of the ‘751 claims. Defendants knew about the 

Roblejo shuffler and were also well aware of the Roblejo ‘122 patent, having disclosed it in 

January 2001 in the ‘750 pending application. Although the ‘750 patent family and the ‘751 

patent family had almost identical patent specifications, directed to substantially the same subject 

matter, by concealing the Roblejo patent in the ‘751 application, SHFL was able to obtain claims 

that were much broader than it otherwise would have obtained had the Roblejo patent been 

disclosed. However, SHFL, as well as Frarrer and Grauzer (and the other named inventors), all 

of whom were substantively involved with the prosecution, intentionally concealed the Roblejo 

‘122 patent and the Roblejo Shuffler (including all the material information in their possession 

relating thereto) from the PTO, despite the requirement that this information be disclosed under

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 30 of 41 PageID #:960
31

applicable rules and laws. The ‘751 patent would not have issued had the prior art not been 

intentionally concealed from the Examiner by SHFL and its representatives.

84. SHFL and its attorneys also committed fraud on the PTO in order to obtain 

allowance of the ‘154 patent asserted against CARD. At least Farrar and Grauzer (as well as the 

other named inventors) and SHFL, all of which were substantively involved with the prosecution 

and had a duty of disclosure to the PTO during the prosecution of the ‘154 patent, were well 

aware of material prior art, including the Roblejo shuffler, but intentionally concealed that 

information from the PTO. The ‘154 patent would not have issued had the art not been 

concealed from the Examiner. Instead of disclosing critical information they learned about the 

Roblejo shuffler at the 1997 Expo, at least Farrar and Grauzer knowingly incorporated what 

SHFL had learned about the Roblejo shuffler into its ‘154 patent application and wrote and/or 

amended claims to include features that they knew SHFL had not invented and were instead 

known to be present in the prior art Roblejo shuffler.

85. SHFL also fraudulently omitted the Nicoletti, Luciano, and Roblejo references 

during the prosecution of the ‘935 patent, which lasted from October 2003 until April 2009. At 

least Farrar and Litman intentionally concealed what they had learned about the Roblejo shuffler 

at the 1997 Expo and the extensive information they possessed relating to the prior art Nicoletti, 

Roblejo and Luciano Shufflers. Indeed, after the CARD litigation, SHFL prepared multiple discs 

containing all the documents from the case discussing these references as well as information 

regarding their operation. Farrar also discussed these disks with Defendants’ outside patent 

counsel. Thus, it is clear that Defendants undoubtedly knew about this prior art but pursued the 

‘935 without concealing this information to the PTO. The concealed prior art clearly anticipates 

claims of the ‘935 patents, as demonstrated in the Shuffle Tech case.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 31 of 41 PageID #:961
32

86. A final example of Defendants’ fraud in the procurement of certain of its patents 

is with respect to the ‘982 patent application, which was also addressed in the Shuffle Tech case. 

Specifically, Defendants withheld information about U.S. patent 6,361,044 to Block (“the Block 

‘044 patent”), issued by the PTO in March 2002, which discloses an automatic card shuffling 

and dealing system that includes a shuffling device under the gaming table and an elevator that 

delivers the shuffled cards to the table surface. SHFL disclosed this patent in the specifications 

of four patent applications it submitted in July 2003 as well as during the course of the 

prosecution of the ‘935 patent. The company did not disclose the Block '044 patent in the 

application for the ‘982 patent however.

Tolling

87. Plaintiffs were unaware it had suffered antitrust injury until March 20, 2020, 

when the Court issued the Order on the motion to dismiss in the TCS Litigation. At that time,

Plaintiffs discovered through conversations with its attorneys, that Defendants had not 

established their control and dominance in the automatic card shuffler market through their 

business acumen or the quality of their products, but instead that they had engaged in significant 

anticompetitive behaviors to procure fraudulently obtained patents and then enforced those 

patents and engage in litigation to force competitors to exit the market. It was only at that point 

that Plaintiffs discovered that Defendants had achieved not only market power as product of 

superior skill, foresight, or industry, but in fact maintained monopoly power through their use of 

anticompetitive and illicit behavior designed to exclude and punish would-be competitors. As a 

result, Plaintiffs could not have pleaded the elements of their antitrust claims prior to March 20, 

2020.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 32 of 41 PageID #:962
33

88. Additionally, Defendants have continuously concealed their illicit acts, as 

discussed above, including concealing knowledge of prior art from the USPTO, concealing 

discovery about such prior art in other litigations, and omitting and concealing the results of 

other litigations in subsequent lawsuits against other competitors.

89. Defendants continue to deny culpability in an effort to conceal their unlawful 

conduct. In court filings in the Shuffle Tech litigation, for example, they argued that they did not 

intend to mislead the patent office and that their lawsuits against competitors like Shuffle Tech 

were not frivolous. Even following the jury verdict in the Shuffle Tech litigation, a Scientific 

Games spokeswoman Susan Cartwright in a statement that “[t]he company believes the jury 

reached the wrong result and will seek review of both the finding of liability and the damages 

award both before the trial court and if necessary on appeal.”7 The parties in Shuffle Tech ended 

up settling, with no admission of liability, despite the jury verdict against Defendants.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

90. Plaintiffs bring this action on its own behalf and as a class action pursuant to Rule 

23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following Class 

(the “Class”):

All persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers 

within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia from any 

Defendant or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time between 

April 1, 2009 and the present. Excluded from the class are governmental entities,

Defendants, any parent, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, Defendants’ officers, 

directors, employees, and immediate families, and any judicial officers or their staff 

working on this action.

91. The Class Period is defined as April 1, 2009 until present.

92. Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of members of the Class because such 

7 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-scientific-games-shuffle-verdict/us-jury-orders-scientificgames-to-pay-315-million-in-antitrust-case-idUSKBN1KS2HF

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 33 of 41 PageID #:963
34

information is in the exclusive control of Defendants. Due to the nature of the trade and 

commerce involved, however, Plaintiffs believe that Class members number at least in the 

thousands and are sufficiently numerous and geographically dispersed throughout the United 

States, its territories and the District of Columbia so that joinder of all Class members is 

impracticable.

93. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the claims of

Plaintiffs and the Class, including, but not limited to:

a. Whether Defendants possessed monopoly power in the market for automatic card 

shufflers in United States during the Class Period;

b. Whether Defendants willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in the 

market for automatic card shufflers in the United States during the Class Period;

c. Whether Defendants attempted to maintain monopoly power in the in the market 

for automatic card shufflers in the United States during the Class Period;

d. Whether Defendants used fraudulent obtained patents and/or sham lawsuits 

against competitors enforcing those patents for the purpose of acquiring and/or 

maintaining monopoly power.

e. Whether Defendants violated Sections 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 

2, 3) as alleged in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief;

f. Whether Defendants’ agents, officers, employees, or representatives were acting 

within the scope of their authority and in furtherance of Defendants’ business 

interests;

g. Whether, and to what extent, the conduct of Defendants caused injury to Plaintiffs

and members of the Class, and, if so, the appropriate measure of damages and/or 

other relief.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 34 of 41 PageID #:964
35

94. Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class defined above, and Plaintiffs’ claims 

are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.

95. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class.

96. Plaintiffs’ interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other 

members of the Class.

97. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel competent and experience in the prosecution

of antitrust and class action litigation.

98. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members.

99. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy because:

a. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would 

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, establishing 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.

b. The Class is readily definable and one for which records should exist in the files 

of Defendants.

c. Prosecution as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitiouslitigation.

d. Treatment as a class action will permit a large number of similarly situated 

persons to adjudicate their common claims in a single forum

simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and 

expense that numerous individual actions would require.

e. Class treatment will permit the adjudication of relatively small claims by many 

Class members who otherwise could not afford to litigate an antitrust claim such 

as is asserted in this complaint on an individual basis.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 35 of 41 PageID #:965
36

f. This class action presents no difficulties of management that would preclude its 

maintenance as a class action.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Monopolization in Violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act

100. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein.

101. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes unlawful monopolization of the 

market for automatic card shufflers certified and approved for use by casinos in violation of 

Sections 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3).

102. “Market power” is the ability profitably to maintain prices above, or output below, 

competitive levels for a significant period of time. “Monopoly power” is the ability to control 

prices and exclude competition in a given market. If a firm can profitably raise prices without 

causing competing firms to expand output and drive down prices, that firm has monopoly power. 

Defendants maintain monopoly power in the market for automatic card shufflers sold in the 

United States during the relevant period.

103. Defendants and their predecessor entities have maintained high and durable market 

shares in this market.

104. As described herein, Defendants willfully acquired and maintained their 

monopoly over the relevant market by committing fraud on the USPTO to procure patents and

by enforcing those invalid and unenforceable patents against would-be competitors in sham 

litigations. Defendants’ assertion of knowingly invalid, unenforceable and non-infringed claims 

was for the purpose, and with the effect of, substantially lessening competition and attempting to 

create, and creating, a substantial restraint on trade and an actual monopoly in the relevant 

market described above.

105. Prior to its sham litigation and resultant acquisition of CARD in 2004 and the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 36 of 41 PageID #:966
37

shuffler assets and data of VendingData in 2009, Defendants already had near dominant market 

share and market power in the relevant market, which market share and market power have been 

unlawfully maintained by SGC. Then, by falsely suing and subsequently acquiring CARD and 

VendingData, Defendants’ market share of the relevant United States market increased to 

virtually 100% after March of 2009, and the resultant market power further increased 

Defendants’ ability to raise prices, restrain and exclude competition, and preclude new entrants 

from the relevant market. That unlawfully obtained market power continues today under SGC’s 

direction.

106. Defendants’ sham litigations against Taiwan Fulgent, TCS Huxley, and DigiDeal 

were also part and parcel of their sham patent infringement litigation strategy. Those sham 

litigations and the subsequent departures of those entities from the U.S. market further reduced 

competition and enhanced Defendants’ monopoly power in the relevant market. Defendants’ 

lawsuits were predicated on objectively baseless patent infringement claims which were 

motivated by Defendants’ desire to impose collateral, anti-competitive injury on Defendants’ 

competitors, potential competitors, their customers, and the market itself.

107. SGC is directly liable for the acts of its own officers, directors, and attorneys in 

authorizing and maintaining the sham DigiDeal litigation after the date it acquired SHFL (Nov. 

21, 2014), and is vicariously liable for the prior acts of SHFL and Bally’s officers, directors, and 

attorneys.

108. SGC, through many of the same officers and attorneys, ratified and approved 

those actions by authorizing and continuing the sham litigation despite SGC’s full knowledge of 

the ongoing fraud on the USPTO and the ongoing sham litigation and the continuing 

monopolization of the relevant market. At least the following SGC officers: Gavin Isaacs, 

Kathryn Lever, and Derik Mooberry (who were top SHFL executives), had full knowledge of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 37 of 41 PageID #:967
38

ongoing fraud on the USPTO and the wrongful nature of the DigiDeal sham litigation and 

ongoing monopolization of the shuffler market from the date they became SGC officers, and 

especially after service of the Complaint in this action on SGC (May 1, 2015), which specifically 

detailed those violations of which Isaacs, Lever, and Mooberry were either specifically or 

generally aware and could have easily investigated and confirmed including through counsel.

109. SGC has also completely absorbed SHFL/Bally, has commingled their funds and 

other assets with SGC’s, has taken over the day-to-day operations of Bally and has held out to 

the public and the trade that the parties are inseparable and are in fact one and the same 

company. To the extent that SGC has divested Bally of its own funds and assets, and thereby 

deprived Bally of the ability to pay in full any judgment this court may award in favor of 

Plaintiffs and against Bally, it would work a manifest injustice and fraud upon Plaintiffs not to 

hold SGC liable for any such deficiency or shortfall.

110. By engaging in the above-described predatory acts, Defendants have willfully 

acquired, maintained, and enhanced their monopoly power in the relevant market. Today, 

Defendants control the market for automatic card shufflers, having nearly 100% of the market.

111. The demand for card shufflers is generally limited to professional casinos, the 

number of which is strictly regulated. Virtually all of these casinos feature card games and 

virtually all of them possess card shufflers. As described above, there are no adequate 

substitutes for automatic card shufflers, and the market demand is inelastic. There are high 

barriers to entry, and Defendants’ use of sham litigations has driven potential competitors from 

the market, leaving Plaintiffs and the class with limited options in procuring automatic card 

shufflers for their business.

112. Thus, as a direct result of Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct in excluding 

competitors and willfully acquiring and maintaining their monopoly power, Plaintiffs and the 

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 38 of 41 PageID #:968
39

proposed class were harmed by the increased the purchase price of their relevant automatic card 

shufflers. Additionally, Defendants’ conduct harmed innovation and competition, which harmed 

Plaintiffs in the quality and price of their relevant automatic card shufflers.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:

A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action 

under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and direct thatreasonable 

notice of this action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be 

give to members of the Class;

B. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged 

herein constituted a violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3)

C. That the Court enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor 

of Plaintiffs and the Class;

D. That the Court award Plaintiffs and the Class treble damages;

E. That Defendant, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees and other 

officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or 

claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, be permanently enjoined and restrained 

from in any manner continuing, maintaining or renewing the conduct alleged herein, or from 

committing any other conduct having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following 

any practice, plan, program, or device having a similar purpose or effect;

F. That the Court award Plaintiffs and the Class attorneys’ fees and costs as well 

as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

G. That the Court award Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further relief as

may be deemed necessary and appropriate.

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 39 of 41 PageID #:969
40

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all matters so triable.

Dated: October 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Shannon M. McNulty

Shannon M. McNulty

CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 899-9090

(312) 251-1160 (fax)

smm@cliffordlaw.com

Michael P. Lehmann (pro hac vice

forthcoming)

Bonny Sweeney (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Christopher L. Lebsock (pro hac vice 

forthcoming)

HAUSFELD LLP

600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200 

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 633-1908

Fax: (415) 358-4980

Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com

Email: bsweeny@hausfeld.com

Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com

Email: sstein@hausfeld.com

Scott Martin (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Jeanette Bayoumi (pro hac vice 

forthcoming)

HAUSFELD LLP

Broad Financial Center

33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor 

New York, NY 10004

Tel: (646) 357-1195

Fax: (212) 202-4322

Email: smartin@hausfeld.com

Email: jbayoumi@hausfeld.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Alfred T. Giuliano 

as Liquidation Trustee for RIH 

Acquisitions NJ, LLC dba The Atlantic 

Club Casino Hotel and Rancho’s Club 

Casino, Inc. d/b/a Magnolia House 

Casino

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 40 of 41 PageID #:970
42

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Shannon M. McNulty, an attorney, hereby certify that on October 30, 2020, I served the 

above and foregoing, by causing a true and accurate copy of such papers to be filed and served on all 

counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system. 

/s/ Shannon M. McNulty

Shannon M. McNulty 

CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

312.899.9090

SMM@cliffordlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-05262 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 41 of 41 PageID #:971