Light & Wonder to Pay $127.5m to Settle Dragon Train IP Dispute with Aristocrat

Light & Wonder has agreed to pay $127.5 million to settle long-running intellectual property litigation brought by Aristocrat Leisure, the Australian pokies and casino game manufacturer, over the disputed Dragon Train slot title.

The settlement ends court proceedings in both Australia and the United States, closing one of the most closely watched IP disputes in the global gaming supplier sector and underscoring Australia’s growing influence in international gaming litigation.

Australian Roots at the Centre of the Dispute

Aristocrat, which is headquartered in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), argued that Dragon Train, launched by Light & Wonder in March 2024, was developed using confidential information tied to its Dragon Link series, a flagship product that has been on casino floors globally since 2017.

The case concerned alleged similarities in core game mechanics and underlying mathematical models, with Aristocrat alleging misuse of trade secrets and copyright-protected materials. The dispute was particularly notable given both companies’ deep commercial ties to the Australian market.

Light & Wonder, which recently completed its transition to a sole listing on the Australian Securities Exchange, has continued to expand its Australian footprint amid heightened regulatory and investor scrutiny.

Settlement Terms and Financial Impact

Under the settlement, Light & Wonder will compensate Aristocrat $127.5 million (approximately AUD $190 million) to resolve claims of misappropriation and intellectual property infringement.

Light & Wonder also acknowledged that certain Aristocrat mathematical information was used during the development of Dragon Train and another title, Jewel of the Dragon. As part of the agreement, the company has committed to:

• Permanently ceasing the global commercialisation of both games
• Making best efforts to remove existing installations from casino floors
• Destroying documents containing the disputed information
• Refraining from further use of the relevant math models or copyright works

Prior to the settlement, Dragon Train was estimated to account for less than 5% of Light & Wonder’s projected adjusted EBITDA for full-year 2025, which had been forecast between $1.43 billion and $1.47 billion.

Litigation to Be Dismissed in Australia and the US

With the settlement in place, Aristocrat will dismiss its claims against Light & Wonder in both Australia and the United States.

In Australia, earlier court rulings allowed Dragon Train machines to remain on casino floors while the legal challenge continued. The Federal Court of Australia rejected Aristocrat’s request for an interlocutory injunction in early 2025, thereby precluding operators from being required to remove the machines during the proceedings. At the time, industry reports estimated that thousands of Dragon Train units were installed across Australian casinos following the court’s decision to permit the games to remain in operation.

The agreement also establishes confidential procedures for identifying and resolving any future concerns related to the use of Aristocrat’s mathematical models in certain existing or in-development Light & Wonder games, particularly those using hold-and-spin mechanics.

The dispute followed a September ruling in the United States that effectively blocked further commercialisation of Dragon Train, prompting parallel legal strategies in both jurisdictions before the parties resolved the matter through settlement.

Wider Implications for the Gaming Industry

The Dragon Train case highlights a broader rise in intellectual property disputes across the gaming and gambling sector, particularly as development costs increase and successful game mechanics generate long-term revenue streams.

For Australian manufacturers such as Aristocrat, the outcome reinforces the importance of protecting proprietary designs, mathematical models, and underlying code in an increasingly competitive global market. For suppliers more broadly, it serves as a reminder that internal controls around confidential information, especially when hiring from competitors, remain critical.

For casino operators, the case underscores the commercial risks of deploying popular titles that later become entangled in IP litigation, even when those games account for a relatively small share of overall revenue.