The SHFL entertaınment vs Jay Chun stoush continues to roll on and on. For those not in the know, Mr Jay Chun, Chairman of local Macau-based live dealer baccarat manufacturer LT Game, and American-based SHFL entertaınment, makers of a rival product, have been embroiled in a years-long patent dispute over the lucrative Macau live dealer market. Mr Chun claims SHFL entertaınment’s product and actions constitute patent violation.
LT Game Chairman Mr Jay Chun at a press conference last year
Local Macau publication Macau Business splashed last Friday on a “breaking news” email newsletter with the headline “SHFL wins patent case against Jay Chun”, no doubt incensing Mr Chun. The headline has since been toned down on Macau Business’ website to “SHFL acquitted in patent case”, but nevertheless Mr Chun has hit the keyboard to issue a press release, which we reproduce in full below.
PRESS RELEASE
Patent infringement in Macau is purely a “public crime,” which means that such a claim may be independently prosecuted by the public prosecutor without the participation of any private party. A criminal indictment for patent infringement may be issued by the Public Prosecutor or the criminal court.
In the proceedings and the decision reached on July 19, 2013 by the Macau First Instance Court (Macau’s criminal trial court) on an indictment of infringement of the Patent I/150 issued by the criminal court, Jay Chun is not the plaintiff in the case, as may have been suggested by some media outlets. Mr. Chun only served as an “Assistant” to the Public Prosecutor because he is the inventor and owner of Patent I/150.
In its July 19, 2013 opinion and decision, the Macau Court found all elements of the Court’s indictment for infringement of Patent I/150 to be supported by the evidence except the element of willfulness, i.e., whether SHFL intentionally infringed the patent, as it determined it was not necessary to ascertain.
In its decision, the Court also held that the “Court cannot decide with certainty whether the components of the Rapid [Baccarat] have functions, technical methods and results identical to the respective characteristics of [Patent I/]150” and nowhere in its opinion did the Court state that SHFL’s Rapid Baccarat does not infringe the Patent I/150. The Court’s stated uncertainty does not equate to a finding of non-infringement of Patent I/]150.
Mr. Chun believes that SHFL’s Rapid Baccarat practices the claims of Patent I/150 by employing the same or substantially the same functionality, method/way, generating the same results. The decision of the Macau Court is not final and Mr. Chun, with all due respect and without prejudice, will be appealing the Court’s decision.
There’s one things for certain, with a number of other actions outstanding between Mr Chun/LT Game and SHFL in multiple jurisdictions, we haven’t heard the end of this!
