From time to time, in the normal course of its operations, the Company is a party to litigation matters and claims. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred. The Company records a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as otherwise stated below, we have concluded that we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, including reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued, for each specific matter disclosed below. An unfavorable outcome to any legal matter, if material, could have an adverse effect on the Company’s operations or its financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

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 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 denied 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 remained 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 October 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment rulings.

On December 7, 2009, Bally filed a motion to lift the stay and schedule a trial on the remaining issues. At a February 1, 2010 hearing on the motion, the Court indicated that it would revisit earlier motions for summary judgment on the issues not addressed on appeal, including IGT’s motions for summary judgment on Bally’s antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. On November 29, 2010, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of IGT on all antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims by Bally and dismissed all other remaining claims. Bally has appealed the grant of summary judgment.

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 alleged that the “BALLY POWER BONUSING™” technology infringed one or more of the claims of the asserted IGT patents. 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, and unenforceability of the asserted patents, antitrust violations, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective business advantage. IGT denied 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 (“the ‘983 patent”), were dismissed. All proceedings relating to Bally’s antitrust, unfair competition, and intentional interference counterclaims were 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 agreed that Bally's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment on invalidity of the '983 patent would be dismissed without prejudice. IGT’s motion for a permanent injunction against Bally’s infringing products was denied.

On April 28, 2010, the court entered an order dismissing without prejudice Bally’s remaining counterclaims (antitrust, unfair competition and intentional interference with business relationships) and entered final judgment in favor of IGT and against the Bally defendants and Bally appealed. On October 6, 2011, the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of IGT and against Bally.

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 (the “’215 patent”), which 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.

This case recommenced in the District Court and on May 13, 2010, the District Court entered an order granting IGT’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Aristocrat appealed this judgment. Proceedings on IGT’s claim that Aristocrat committed inequitable conduct in reviving the ‘215 patent application continued in the District Court. A trial was held the week of April 4, 2011 on that inequitable conduct issue, and that claim was dismissed on May 6, 2011.

IGT and Aristocrat entered into an agreement, effective September 30, 2011, settling the lawsuit. On October 6, 2011, the parties filed a letter with the court advising the court that, in accordance with the parties’ resolution of several disputes between them, the case will be concluded by dismissal with prejudice following the final resolution of the pending appeal of the judgment of non-infringement. In connection with the settlement, IGT was granted an irrevocable paid-up license to the Aristocrat patents that were the subject of the litigation and related patents.

On November 15, 2010, IGT filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California against Aristocrat Leisure Limited of Australia and its US affiliate Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Aristocrat”) seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of US Patent No. 6,620,047 (the “’047 patent”) and US Patent No. RE 39,370 (the “’370 patent”) in violation of 35 U.S.C. section 271.

On January 28, 2011, IGT asserted an additional claim against Aristocrat for infringement of US Patent No 7,063,615 (the “’615 patent”) seeking similar relief. IGT asserted that Aristocrat infringes on the ‘047, the ‘370, and the ‘615 patents in connection with the sale and distribution of gaming devices, including the Viridian WS slot machine, without authorization or license from IGT. Aristocrat denied infringement, filed various affirmative defenses and counterclaimed for patent invalidity.

IGT and Aristocrat entered into an agreement, effective September 30, 2011, settling the lawsuit and on October 4, 2011, the court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit. In connection with the settlement, IGT granted Aristocrat a non-exclusive license to certain IGT patents. IGT and Aristocrat subsequently entered into an arbitration proceeding regarding Aristocrat’s payment of royalties under the license agreement, which was concluded in IGT’s favor in June 2012.

In an action brought in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador by Babstock and Small as representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming in the Province of New Foundland and Labrador; Atlantic Lottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc. IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game Technology and other third party defendants seeking indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on September 17, 2012. No hearing date has been set.

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 Exchange Act against IGT and certain of its current and former officers and directors. 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. In April 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In March 2011, defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The Court found that the allegations concerning statements about the seasonality of game play levels and announcements of projects with Harrah’s and City Center were sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiffs did not state a claim based on the remaining statements about earnings, operating expense, or forward-looking statements about play levels and server-based technology.

The parties have settled this action. On February 1, 2012, at the direction of the Court, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pending Settlement. On March 28, 2012, the parties submitted to the Court a stipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $12.5 million. On March 30, 2012 the Court issued an order of preliminary approval and the settlement was paid into escrow by insurance in April 2012. The Court approved the stipulated settlement on October 19, 2012.

Between August 20, 2009 and September 17, 2009, the Company was nominally sued in a series of derivative lawsuits filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Fosbre v. Matthews et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00467; Calamore v. Matthews et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00489; Israni v. Bittman, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00536; and Aronson v. Matthews et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00542. Plaintiffs purportedly brought their respective actions on behalf of the Company. The complaints asserted claims against various current and former officers and directors of the Company, for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution and indemnification. The complaints sought an unspecified amount of damages and alleged similar facts as the securities class action lawsuit.

The complaints additionally alleged that certain individual defendants engaged in insider trading and that the director defendants improperly handled Thomas J. Matthews’ resignation as Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The actions were consolidated and subsequently a consolidated derivative complaint was filed in December 2009. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. On July 6, 2010, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. After plaintiffs elected not to amend, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff in Israni v. Bittman, et al. appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 2, 2012, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision dismissing the action.

In a letter dated October 7, 2009 to the Company’s Board of Directors, a shareholder made factual allegations similar to those set forth in the above derivative and securities class actions and demanded that the Board investigate, address and remedy the harm allegedly inflicted on IGT. In particular, the letter alleged that certain officers and directors grossly mismanaged the Company by overspending in the area of R&D of server-based game technology despite a looming recession to which the Company was particularly vulnerable; by making or allowing false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s growth prospects and earnings guidance; and by wasting corporate assets by causing the Company to repurchase Company stock at inflated prices. The letter asserts that this alleged conduct resulted in breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. On July 9, 2010, the shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Sprando v. Hart, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00415 and asserting claims similar to those described above. No claims were asserted against the Company, which is a nominal defendant. On July 25, 2011, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 23, 2012.

In February 2011, another shareholder sent a letter to the Company’s Board of Directors requesting that the Board investigate allegations similar to those set forth in the derivative actions described above and bring a lawsuit against various of the Company’s current or former officers and directors. In response the Board of Directors formed a litigation committee comprised of disinterested outside directors and assisted by outside counsel to investigate and evaluate the allegations raised in this letter. At the conclusion of this investigation, the committee concluded and recommended that it would not be in the best interests of the Company or its shareholders to pursue the proposed claims. The Board considered and accepted this recommendation and the Company informed the shareholder of the Board’s resolution in September 2011. On March 15, 2012, the shareholder filed a derivative action in state court in Reno, Nevada (Gusinsky v. Thomas J. Matthews, et. al.), Second Judicial Court of the State of Nevada. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 24, 2012.

On April 8, 2011, the Company was nominally sued in a derivative complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Arduini v. Hart, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00255. The claims and allegations in this complaint are similar to those asserted in the securities class action and derivative actions described above. A motion to dismiss was filed. On March 14, 2012, defendants’ motion to dismiss the action was granted. On April 3, 2012, the plaintiff appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of participants in the Company’s employee pension plans, naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan Committee, and several current and former officers and directors. The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. The actions were consolidated. The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecified damages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C §§ 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to those in the securities and derivative lawsuits described above, and further alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan participants by failing to disclose material facts to plan participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the participants, failing to properly manage plan assets, and permitting participants to elect to invest in Company stock. In March 2011, defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part. On March 16, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

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 accounting guidance for environmental remediation liabilities, we determined the incurrence of additional remediation costs is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and no liability has been recorded.

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 were 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.

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 September 30, 2012 totaled $16.7 million.

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 on August 3, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision. IGT’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ state law claims was argued on October 22, 2009 and granted in IGT’s favor on December 8, 2009. On April 13, 2010, the District Court granted IGT’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ jury demand and granted IGT’s motion to retax costs and fees. It denied plaintiffs’ motion for certification and/or reconsideration.

On February 8, 2011, a jury verdict was entered in favor of the plaintiffs as to their Sarbanes-Oxley claims and plaintiffs were awarded damages in an amount equal to approximately $2.2 million. On March 9, 2011, IGT filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for a New Trial or for Remittitur. On May 24, 2011, the Court denied these motions, and on May 27, 2011, the Court entered an amended judgment for prejudgment interest of approximately $1.3 million, attorneys’ fees of approximately $1.0 million, and court costs of approximately $132,000. IGT filed a notice of appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 21, 2011, which is pending. On July 1, 2011 plaintiffs filed a notice of cross appeal. The parties’ cross appeals have been fully briefed.

In the normal course of business, we are party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, such as performance bonds 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.

Our sales agreements that include software and IP licensing arrangements may require IGT to indemnify the third-party licensee against liability and damages (including legal defense costs) arising from any claims of patent, copyright, trademark infringement, or trade secret misappropriation. 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 settlement costs due to infringement claims. As we consider the likelihood of incurring future costs to be remote, no liability has been recorded.

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.

We are subject to sales, use, income, gaming and other tax audits and administrative proceedings in various US federal, state, local, and foreign jurisdictions. While we believe we have properly reported our tax liabilities in each jurisdiction, we can give no assurance that taxing authorities will not propose adjustments that increase our tax liabilities.