1.0.0.3 false Contingencies false 1 $ false false Unit_2 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit_22 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit_5 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 2 Contingencies 0 igt_Contingencies igt false na duration string Contingencies false false false false false true false false false 1 false false 0 0 false false Contingencies false 3 Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration string No definition available. false false false false false false false false false 1 false false 0 0 <div>    15. Contingencies Litigation IGT has been named in and has brought lawsuits in the normal course of business. We do not expect the outcome of these suits, including the lawsuits described below, to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of future operations. Bally 2004 Federal District Court of Nevada On December 7, 2004, IGT filed a complaint in US District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that defendants Alliance Gaming Corp., Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc. infringed six US patents held by IGT: US Patent Nos. 6,827,646; 5,848,932; 5,788,573; 5,722,891; 6,712,698; and 6,722,985. On January 21, 2005, defendants filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and raising various affirmative defenses to IGT's asserted claims. Defendants also asserted fourteen counterclaims against IGT, including counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the asserted patents, and for antitrust violations and intentional interference with prospective business advantage. IGT has successfully moved for partial summary judgment on defendants’ counterclaims for intentional interference with prospective business advantage and defendants’ antitrust allegations related to the gaming machine market. IGT denies the remaining allegations. On May 9, 2007, the Court issued an order construing disputed terms of the asserted patent claims. On October 16, 2008, the Court issued summary judgment rulings finding certain of IGT’s patents, including patents that IGT believes cover bonus wheel gaming machines, invalid as obvious. The rulings also found that Bally was not infringing certain patents asserted by IGT. Bally’s antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims remain pending. On November 7, 2008, the Court issued an order staying the proceedings and certifying the summary judgment and claim construction rulings for immediate appeal. On December 1, 2008, IGT appealed the rulings to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On January 8, 2009, Bally moved to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. On February 2, 2009, the Federal Circuit denied the Bally motion without prejudice to the parties raising jurisdictional issues in their merits briefs. All appellate briefs have been filed, but no date has been set for oral argument. 2006 Federal District Court of Delaware On April 28, 2006, IGT filed a complaint in US District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that defendants Bally Technologies, Inc., Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc. infringed nine US patents held by IGT: US Patent Nos. RE 38,812; RE 37,885; 6,832,958; 6,319,125; 6,244,958; 6,431,983; 6,607,441; 6,565,434; and 6,620,046. The complaint alleges that the “BALLY POWER BONUSING™” technology infringes one or more of the claims of the asserted IGT patents. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and an injunction. On June 30, 2006, defendants filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and raising various affirmative defenses to IGT’s asserted claims. Defendants also asserted twelve counterclaims against IGT, including counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability of the asserted patents, antitrust violations, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective business advantage. IGT denies these allegations. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, all claims and counterclaims except those relating to US Patent Nos. RE 37,885 ("the '885 patent"), RE 38,812 ("the '812 patent"), and 6,431,983 have been dismissed. All proceedings relating to Bally’s antitrust, unfair competition, and intentional interference counterclaims have been stayed. On April 28, 2009, the court issued a summary judgment ruling finding the '885 and '812 patents valid. The court also ruled that Bally's "Power Rewards" and "ACSC Power Winners" products infringe certain claims of the '885 and '812 patents. The court granted Bally's motion for summary judgment that Bally's "SDS Power Winners" does not infringe the '885 patent and "Power Bank" and "Power Promotions" do not infringe the '983 patent. The court denied Bally's motion for summary judgment that the '983 patent is invalid. The parties have agreed that Bally's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment on invalidity of the '983 patent will be dismissed without prejudice. A trial to determine the amount of damages incurred by IGT, and related matters, as a result of Bally's infringement has not yet been scheduled. 2006 Federal District Court of Nevada On September 5, 2006, Bally Gaming, Inc. filed a complaint in US District Court for the District of Nevada alleging that IGT is infringing US Patent No. 7,100,916, entitled “Indicator Wheel System.”  The products named in the complaint are IGT’s gaming machines with “wheel” features, including, without limitation, Wheel of Fortune®, Wheel of Gold®, The Addams Family™, American Bandstand®, The Apprentice™,  Dilbert's™ Wheelbert™, Drew Carey Great Balls of Cash™, Elvira®, I Dream of Jeannie®, I Love Lucy™, Indiana Jones™: Raiders of the Lost Ark™, M*A*S*H*™, Megabucks® with Morgan Fairchild, Regis On the Town™, Sinatra™ and The Twilight Zone®  gaming machines. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction. On October 6, 2006, IGT filed an answer and counterclaims denying infringement and seeking a declaration that the patent is invalid and non-infringed. On September 9, 2008, the Court granted IGT’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity and final judgment in IGT’s favor was entered on October 3, 2008. Bally appealed the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  All appellate briefs have been filed, but no date has been set for oral argument. Aristocrat 2006 Northern Federal District Court of California On June 12, 2006, Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. and Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against IGT. Aristocrat alleged that IGT willfully infringed US Patent No. 7,056,215, which was issued on June 6, 2006. On December 15, 2006, Aristocrat filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that IGT willfully infringed US Patent No. 7,108,603, which issued on September 19, 2006. The IGT products named in the original and amended complaints were the Fort Knox® mystery progressive slot machines. On June 13, 2007, the US District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of IGT declaring both patents invalid. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed this decision on September 22, 2008. IGT’s request for a rehearing was denied on November 17, 2008. IGT intends to seek review by the US Supreme Court. A status hearing was held in the District Court on February 13, 2009. Brochu v. Loto Quebec Loto Quebec commenced an action in warranty against VLC, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of IGT, and another manufacturer of video lottery machines in October 2003, in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, seeking indemnification for any damages that may be awarded against Loto Quebec in a class action suit, also filed in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec. The class action claim against Loto Quebec, to which neither IGT nor any of its affiliates are parties, was filed by Jean Brochu on behalf of himself and a class of other persons who allegedly developed pathological behaviors through the play of video lottery machines made available by Loto Quebec in taverns and other public locations. In this action, the plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the class damages of approximately CAD$578.7 million, representing CAD$4,863 per class member, and CAD$119.0 million in punitive damages. Loto Quebec filed its Plea in Defense in the main action in February 2006. On August 1, 2008, Loto Quebec filed a discontinuance of the action in warranty against VLC. Notwithstanding the discontinuance, Loto Quebec may still pursue the claims it asserted, or could have asserted, in the action in warranty through arbitration against VLC. The trial of the class action against Loto Quebec commenced on September 15, 2008 and is ongoing. IBEW Local 697 Pension Fund v. International Game Technology, et al. On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its officers, one of whom is a director.  The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007 and October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects.  Plaintiff's counsel issued a press release on July 30, 2009, announcing the lawsuit's pendency, the claims asserted, the purported class period, and the right of any class member to seek lead plaintiff status.  This press release initiated the 60-day statutory period for shareholders to file a motion to seek lead-plaintiff status.  Environmental Matters CCSC, a casino operation sold by IGT in April 2003, is located in an area that has been designated by the EPA as an active Superfund site because of contamination from historic mining activity in the area. In order for Anchor Coin, an entity IGT acquired in December 2001, to develop the CCSC site, it voluntarily entered into an administrative order of consent with the EPA to conduct soil removal and analysis (a requirement imposed on similarly situated property developers within the region) in conjunction with re-routing mine drainage. The work and obligations contemplated by the agreement were completed by Anchor in June 1998, and the EPA subsequently issued a termination of the order. The EPA, together with other property developers excluding CCSC, continues remediation activities at the site. While we believe our remediation obligations are complete, it is possible that additional contamination may be identified and we could be obligated to participate in remediation efforts. Under the guidance in SOP 96-1, Environmental Remediation Liabilities, we determined the incurrence of additional remediation costs is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and no liability is recorded at this time. OSHA / Wrongful Termination Matter On July 8, 2004, two former employees filed a complaint with the US Department of Labor, OSHA alleging retaliatory termination in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The former employees allege that they were terminated in retaliation for questioning whether Anchor and its executives failed to properly disclose information allegedly affecting the value of Anchor's patents in connection with IGT's acquisition of Anchor in December 2001. The former employees also allege that the acquired patents are overvalued on the financial statements of IGT. Outside counsel, retained by an independent committee of our Board of Directors, reviewed the allegations and found them to be entirely without merit. On November 10, 2004, the employees withdrew their complaint filed with OSHA and filed a notice of intent to file a complaint in federal court. On December 1, 2004, a complaint was filed under seal in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, based on the same facts set forth above regarding their OSHA complaint. IGT filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims in plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 14, 2007, the US District Court for the District of Nevada entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of IGT as to plaintiffs’ Sarbanes-Oxley whistle-blower claims and dismissed their state law claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s decision was denied. Plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was heard on March 12, 2009, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision. In conjunction with the Anchor acquisition purchase price allocation as of December 31, 2001, IGT used the relief of royalty valuation methodology to estimate the fair value of the patents at $164.4 million. The carrying value of the patents at June 30, 2009 totaled $57.9 million, with a remaining life of approximately seven years. Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risks In the normal course of business, we are party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, such as performance bonds and guarantees not reflected in our balance sheet. We do not expect any material losses to result from these arrangements and are not dependent on off-balance sheet financing arrangements to fund our operations. Performance Bonds Performance bonds outstanding related to gaming operations totaled $5.7 million at June 30, 2009. We are liable to reimburse the bond issuer in the event of exercise due to nonperformance. Letters of Credit Outstanding letters of credit issued under our line of credit to ensure payment to certain vendors and governmental agencies totaled $4.1 million at June 30, 2009. IGT Licensor Arrangements Our sales agreements that include software and IP licensing arrangements may provide a clause whereby IGT indemnifies the third party licensee against liability and damages (including legal defense costs) arising from any claims of patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret infringement. Should such a claim occur, we could be required to make payments to the licensee for any liabilities or damages incurred. Historically, we have not incurred any significant costs due to infringement claims. As we consider the likelihood of incurring future costs to be remote, no liability has been recorded. Product Warranties The majority of our products are generally covered by a warranty for periods ranging from 90 days to one year. We estimate accrued warranty costs in the table below based on historical trends in product failure rates and expected costs to provide warranty services.   <table style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" cellspacing="0" align="center"> <tbody> <tr style="FONT-SIZE: 0px" height="0"> <td width="440"></td> <td width="7"></td> <td width="7"></td> <td width="68"></td> <td width="7"></td> <td width="7"></td> <td width="7"></td> <td width="68"></td> <td width="7"></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign= "bottom" width="440"> Nine Months Ended June 30, </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign= "bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign= "bottom" width="76" colspan="2"> 2009 </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign= "bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign= "bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" valign= "bottom" width="76" colspan="2"> 2008 </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1px solid" valign= "bottom" width="7"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="440"> (In millions) </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="76" colspan="2"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="76" colspan="2"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="440"> Balance at beginning of fiscal year </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> $ </td> <td valign="bottom" width="68"> 8.4 </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> $ </td> <td valign="bottom" width="68"> 8.7 </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="440"> Reduction for payments made </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="68"> (5.6 </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> ) </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="68"> (6.9 </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> ) </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="440"> Accrual for new warranties issued </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="68"> 7.8 </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="68"> 8.5 </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="440"> Adjustments for pre-existing warranties </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style= "BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style= "BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="68"> (1.9 </td> <td style= "BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> ) </td> <td style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style= "BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style= "BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="68"> (0.7 </td> <td style= "BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" valign="bottom" width="7"> ) </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="bottom" width="440"> Ending balance </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 3px double" valign= "bottom" width="7"> $ </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 3px double" valign= "bottom" width="68"> 8.7 </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 3px double" valign= "bottom" width="7"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="7"> </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 3px double" valign= "bottom" width="7"> $ </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 3px double" valign= "bottom" width="68"> 9.6 </td> <td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 3px double" valign= "bottom" width="7"> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Self-Insurance We are self-insured for various levels of workers’ compensation, directors’ and officers’ liability, and electronic errors and omissions liability, as well as employee medical, dental, prescription drug, and disability coverage. We purchase stop loss coverage to protect against unexpected claims. Accrued insurance claims and reserves include estimated settlements for known claims and actuarial estimates for claims incurred but not reported. </div>    15. Contingencies Litigation IGT has been named in and has brought false false No definition available. No authoritative reference available. false false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true