Van Asdale v. Intl Game Technology

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 13, 200907-16597California7,913 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

IGT is a publicly-traded, Nevada-based company specializ- ing in computerized gaming machines and similar products. The company hired Shawn and Lena1 in January 2001 to work as in-house intellectual property (“IP”) attorneys in Nevada. Both had previously worked for law firms in Chicago. During all periods relevant to this suit, neither plaintiff was admitted to practice law in any state other than Illinois.

Both Shawn and Lena were initially hired for the position of Associate General Counsel. In September 2002, Shawn was promoted to Director of Strategic Development, a posi- tion in which he was generally responsible for overseeing IGT’s IP litigation. Similarly, Lena was promoted in the Spring of 2003 to Director of IP Procurement, and was responsible for the transactional side of IGT’s IP division, which included managing IGT’s patents, trademarks, and copyrights. After their promotions, both Shawn and Lena reported directly to IGT’s General Counsel. When Shawn and Lena began their employment with IGT, that position was held by Sara Beth Brown; Brown was replaced by David Johnson in November 2003.

In 2001, IGT began merger negotiations with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.