Nevada Supreme Court reverses ruling on slot technology case between Caesars and engineer Sam Johnson

The Nevada Supreme Court has reversed Clark County District Judge Nancy Alff's ruling in a case involving technology engineer Sam Johnson and his company, Tipping Point Gaming, who had been working with Caesars Entertainment to bring new gaming technology to market.

The high court ruled in June that the issue be remanded back to the District Court for a new trial after determining that Alff erred by cutting off claims before reaching the jury in the civil case brought by Johnson.

According to court documents retrieved by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Johnson entered an agreement with Caesars more than 10 years ago to bring "picture-in-picture" technology on slot machines to market.

Johnson viewed his relationship with Caesars as a means to bring his technology to market as the gaming giant helped guide the project through a certification process with Gaming Laboratories International. However, Johnson later discovered through internal communications among Caesars executives that they were conspiring not to bring his products to market, the lawsuit contends.

According to Johnson, Caesars filed a lawsuit against Tipping Point that prevented him from entering a pending third-party contract. Johnson responded with a counterclaim against Caesars for bad faith, fraud, and tortious interference, but he was forced to cease Tipping Point’s operations and sell off company assets at auction. At trial, Johnson presented executive emails indicating they were not trying to help with certification, reports Review-Journal.

"It was a stunning blow," Johnson said in a release. "Several executives with Caesars had originally been discussing buying into our company, or even purchasing it entirely, and moving forward with the project. Caesars not only abruptly pulled the plug on our agreement, not only turned on my team at TPG but they made the decision to do all they could to poison the well and crush us."

After the lawsuit went to trial, the judge ruled the jury could not consider TPG’s counterclaims against Caesars.

The court granted Caesars’ motion to limit the claims to be considered by the jury to only those arising under a narrow technical agreement. The jury ultimately ruled against Caesars on all of its claims, and at the same time determined that although Caesars breached the agreement, there were no awardable contract damages for TPG. It’s unclear when a new trial would be conducted on the case.