The iGaming sector is a fertile ground for innovation, but also an increasingly contested battleground for intellectual property (IP) disputes. As gaming technology advances rapidly and market opportunities multiply, protecting IP rights is becoming more crucial – and complex – than ever before.
This week’s revelation that Playtech commissioned a secret and seemingly invasive investigation into Evolution, proves that competition among games developers has reached a tipping point.
“We are seeing an upward trend in IP disputes because people see huge value in this space. There is a lot to fight over,” says Joel Vertes, partner and co-head of Intellectual Property at CMS in London.
His team, which is one of the largest IP practices in Europe, regularly deals with disputes involving game developers, platforms and even individuals accused of IP infringements or misappropriation of trade secrets. Vertes highlights the rapid expansion, advanced technology and vast variety as key drivers. “The gaming sector as a whole has just exploded in the last 10 years,” he adds.
How the Spribe/Aviator case broke new ground
One case in particular crystallises how IP disputes manifest in the sector. It is the recent high-profile legal battle between the two game developers Spribe and Aviator LLC, which involves Spribe’s award-winning crash game Aviator.
The dispute started in Georgia last year, in a case that resulted in Spribe being found to have registered Aviator LLC’s trademarks in bad faith. This year the dispute resurfaced in a UK High Court, and in August Spribe won a UK injunction against Aviator LLC, blocking it from producing a copycat crash game and the use of Spribe’s trademarks.
Although Aviator filed for permission to appeal in the Court of Appeal on 11 September, the application was abandoned on 8 October 2025, and the Court dismissed it the same day, having criticised Aviator’s conduct as “petulant”.
The case highlights the UK’s strong enforcement of IP rights. Proceedings regarding the same case are ongoing in other jurisdictions, including the EUIPO. The UK trial is expected to be heard in either 2025 or 2026.
Protecting IP is challenging
Vertes underscores the importance of interim injunctions in IP disputes: “Even though temporary, they can be decisive. If granted, the defendant is blocked from acting and many disputes settle shortly after.”
He explains that in Europe, game mechanics are difficult to protect directly. “Generally, you’re looking at a bundle of rights. So, you’re looking at the brand, and you’re looking at underlying copyright in the source code,” Vertes says. The “general look and feel” of a game, along with registered design rights over graphical user interfaces, have become key IP battlegrounds.
“The work we’re doing a lot of at the moment is in design rights,” he adds, pointing to how in the UK and Europe, design protection offers a whole new angle to fight over. The increasing speed of game development cycles – accelerated further by AI technology capable of generating code and imagery rapidly – adds urgency to IP vigilance.
Richard Williams, IP lawyer at Keystone Law in London, emphasises the strategic importance of brand and trademark protection in gaming: “Clearance is a critical step. If you don’t check, you might be blocked from a market or subject to costly litigation.”
An example of this is the backstory to the dispute between Spribe and Aviator LLC. In its Georgia case Aviator LLC claimed the rights to the name and logo created in 2017. The court ultimately awarded Aviator $330 million in compensation, which was upheld in May of this year.
Williams stresses that smaller markets can still have a huge impact. “This insight reveals how early trademark clearance – often overlooked – can make or break international expansion.”
IP disputes are being weaponised
In Europe, legal frameworks around IP protection are more uniform than in many regions, but still complex. Vertes advises that those involved in the industry must become “IP-savvy quite quickly,” ensuring their names, designs, and coding practices do not infringe on others’ rights.
There is agreement among experts to whom iGB has spoken that IP cases are being weaponised in a competitive market. “Obviously even if the IP dispute isn’t successful, it’s a good way of trying to keep competitors out of the market for as long as possible,” says Richard Williams.
Joel Vertes agrees that it does happen: “I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t weaponise your IP. If you’ve filed a patent over some mechanics in a game, or you’ve registered designs over the graphic user interface, why would you not go out and enforce it?” In the end, it is all about upholding brand and technology exclusivity in a highly competitive environment.
“It’s not about squishing small companies from entering the market – they’re perfectly entitled to compete. But that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to step on others’ toes to do it.”
Across the Atlantic is a different picture
Across the Atlantic, the situation is notably different, as the US is largely shaped by distinct legal doctrines and litigation cultures. Steven Caloiaro, an intellectual property litigator at the Reno office of Dickinson Wright, offers a contrasting perspective.
Caloiaro observes that patent litigation in the US gaming sector has actually declined over the last decade. He attributes this to pivotal Supreme Court decisions like Bilski vs Kappos in 2010 which narrowed patent eligibility for software innovations.
“Bilski made it very difficult to successfully litigate software-related patent cases,” Caloiaro explains. Since many iGaming innovations revolve around software – such as progressive jackpots, reward systems and bonus mechanics – the impact has been significant, he explains.
“For the established gaming community, litigation has been down – specifically in the iGaming sector.”
Instead, the rising trend in the US is “softer IP” disputes covering trademarks, trade dress and trade secrets, as evidenced in recent cases like Light & Wonder vs Aristocrat. In that case, a game designer’s movement between companies raised trade secret concerns—a classic scenario in the tight knit industry.
Non-compete enforcement has also increased in the US as companies seek to indirectly protect IP by limiting employee mobility. Caloiaro notes: “Non-competes can serve as a workaround to protect IP.” Despite challenges from the Federal Trade Commission, gaming companies have actively sought to enforce these clauses, he says.
Fundamental distinctions between Europe and the US
When it comes to enforcement remedies, Caloiaro contrasts the US and Europe: “In the UK or EU, if you win, you’ll almost certainly get an injunction. In the US, it’s not guaranteed, which can reduce the value of a win if you’re trying to keep a competitor off the market.”
Moreover, damages awarded in US courts tend to be significantly higher, but litigation is also more costly and carries higher risk since parties usually bear their own legal fees regardless of the outcome.
Outlining other fundamental distinctions between European and US IP enforcement Vertes says the biggest difference is the size of damages. “US claims can be worth far more than European ones. So if you’re chasing a big monetary win, the US is [more] attractive,” he explains.
Vertes also points out the value of “design rights” in Europe, a somewhat underutilised protection in the US, where trade secrets and trademarks dominate the softer IP landscape. The Aviator injunction highlights how UK courts actively protect registered trademarks and associated branding.
By contrast, Caloiaro notes that US patent law’s challenges in protecting software-based innovations tend to reduce patent suits but encourage a focus on trade dress – the visual appearance of a product – and trade secret claims.
AI’s rise complicates the IP picture on both sides of the Atlantic. Caloiaro agrees that AI lowers barriers to entry and blurs lines between inspiration and infringement, although US patent offices require a human inventor, limiting AI-generated patent claims.
Best practices moving forward
Both European and US experts emphasise proactive IP management. Vertes urges companies to “choose a name, make sure you’ve cleared it, that you’re not infringing on others”.
“Talk to your developers. Make sure they’re not just going online and scraping or copying. There’s no rule that says if you make five changes from a copyright work, it’s suddenly okay. It doesn’t work like that,” he says.
Caloiaro stresses the importance of understanding the different IP types – trademarks, copyrights, patents – and filing registrations and documentation accordingly. Both lawyers are in agreement that, in today’s fiercely competitive and fast-moving iGaming market, a sophisticated IP strategy is essential for any company to survive.
The iGaming marketplace has become fiercely competitive and IP dispute cases are seeking to stifle that. How are these disputes evolving and what is their lasting impact?