Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`* * *
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB
`
`ORDER
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`NEXRF CORP.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`PLAYTIKA LTD., et al.,
`
`
`11
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Plaintiff NEXREF Corp. sued Defendants Playtika Ltd., Playtika Holding Corp.
`
`(collectively, “Playtika”) and Caesars Interactive Entertainment (“Caesars”) for allegedly
`
`infringing five patents1 by offering online slot machine games. (ECF No. 1.) Before the
`
`Court are Caesars and Playtika’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 26, 28),2 and Playtika’s
`
`motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (ECF No. 53).3, 4 As further
`
`explained below, because the Court agrees with Defendants in pertinent part that all five
`
`of Plaintiff’s asserted patents are invalid under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
`
`U.S. 208 (2014), and its progeny, the Court will grant both motions to dismiss. The Court
`
`will also deny Playtika’s motion for sanctions primarily because it is based on arguments
`
`that the Court does not rule on in this order.
`
`22
`
`///
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1The five patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,747,229 (the ’229 patent), 8,506,406 (the
`’406 patent), 9,646,454 (the ’454 patent), 8,506,407 (the ’407 patent), and 9,373,116 (the
`’116 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). (ECF No. 1 at 1.)
`
`2Plaintiff filed a combined response (ECF No. 47), and Defendants filed replies
`(ECF Nos. 51, 52).
`
`3Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 56), and Playtika filed a reply (ECF No. 57).
`
`4The Court denies the parties’ requests for oral argument. See LR 78-1.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The following allegations are adapted from the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff
`
`alleges that the asserted patents “disclose various systems and methods for
`
`embodiments of a fully remote, multiplayer capable, secure, and engaging casino-style
`
`gaming system.” (Id. at 2.) Said otherwise, the asserted patents generally claim slot
`
`machine games playable on a computer or handheld device run on a remote server.
`
`Plaintiff more specifically alleges that all asserted patents cover certain unconventional
`
`elements:
`
`1. A centralized game server that sends game outcomes and corresponding
`
`images to a remote device;
`
`2. A verification server coupled to the centralized game server that controls
`
`access to gaming activities;
`
`3. A relatively fast image and/or video delivery component.
`
`(Id. at 2.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Plaintiff further alleges that particular asserted patents contain additional
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`unconventional elements. (Id. at 2-3.) The ’229 patent covers a paytable module
`
`associated with the centralized game server. (Id.) The ’407 patent covers a transactional
`
`system that credits funds from winning game outcomes to a user’s financial account. (Id.
`
`at 3.) And the ’116 patent covers location tracking of a user, along with providing that user
`
`with rewards. (Id.)
`
`21
`
`
`
`Caesars owned Playtika for some time but does not anymore. (Id. at 4-5.) Both
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Defendants offer various mobile slot machine games, some that allow users to wager real
`
`money, and some that do not. (Id. at 5-7.) Plaintiff accuses these games of infringement.5
`
`(Id. at 5-23.)
`
`25
`
`///
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`5Plaintiff’s Complaint is unclear as to who makes what game, and precisely which
`games Plaintiff is accusing of infringing which patents. Indeed, Defendants argue
`Plaintiff’s Complaint is fatally unclear. (ECF Nos. 26 at 24-25, 28 at 10-16.) However, the
`Court does not wade into these issues because it finds the asserted patents invalid under
`Alice and its progeny.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint includes five counts, one for each of the asserted patents. (Id.)
`
`In each count, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe “the asserted claims of” each of
`
`the asserted patents, and otherwise states that Defendants infringe “one or more claims
`
`of” each patent, “including but not limited to claim 1[.]” (See, e.g., id. at 7.) But Plaintiff
`
`characterizes claim 1 of each asserted patent as exemplary, and only ever specifically
`
`includes the limitations of claim 1 of each asserted patent in its Complaint. (Id. at 7-8, 10,
`
`14, 17, 20.)
`
`
`
`Following the order that Plaintiff uses in the Complaint, and to provide necessary
`
`context for the Court’s discussion infra, claim 1 of each of the asserted patents follows
`
`10
`
`below.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ’229 patent
`
`A gaming server system configured to communicate with at least one
`network access device communicatively coupled to a network, the gaming
`server system comprising:
`a verification system configured to access a registration database
`having a plurality of registration data associated with each registered
`user;
`a memory module configured to store a plurality of images
`corresponding to at least one game outcome that are communicated
`to the at least one network access device;
`a centralized gaming server communicatively coupled to each of the
`at least one network access device, the centralized gaming server
`configured to generate at least one random game outcome by
`random generation at the centralized gaming server;
`a paytable module associated with the centralized gaming server,
`the paytable module configured to determine one or more prizes
`associated with a game outcome; and
`the centralized gaming server configured to access the memory
`module and communicate the plurality of images corresponding to
`the at least one random game outcome to the at least one network
`access device.
`
`(Id. at 7-8.)
`
`B.
`
`The ’406 Patent
`
`A system to run a gaming application on a network access device,
`comprising:
`the network access device; and
`a remote gaming system including a verification system;
`the network access device configured to transmit user identification
`information and security information to the verification system;
`the network access device
`configured
`to
`receive an
`acknowledgement from the verification system indicating that the
`user identification information and security information are valid;
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`the network access device configured to receive a game input from
`a user of the network access device and transmit the game input to
`the remote gaming system;
`the remote gaming system configured to receive the game input and
`generate a random game output, the remote gaming system further
`configured to associate an image ID with the random game output
`and select one or more images associated with the image ID for
`encoding and broadcasting to the network access device;
`the network access device configured to receive a plurality of
`broadcast images generated by the remote gaming system.
`
`(Id. at 10.)
`
`C.
`
`The ’454 Patent
`
`A networked gaming system comprising:
`a user identification received by at least one network access device
`that is compared with registration data in a registration database,
`wherein a player is provided access to a game when the user
`identification matches the registered player data;
`a transactional component that charges the registered player at least
`one credit for a game outcome;
`a centralized networked gaming module that performs game
`operations and generates at least one random game output by
`random generation at the networked gaming module;
`the networked gaming module associates the at least one random
`game output with an image ID; and
`the networked gaming module communicates one or more images
`corresponding to the image ID to the network access device.
`
`(Id. at 14.)
`
`D.
`
`The ’407 Patent
`
`A gaming system network, comprising:
`a verification system configured to verify that a user attempting to
`access the gaming system network is a registered player, the user
`operating a network access device communicating with the gaming
`system network;
`a gaming system configured to generate at least one random game
`output, the gaming system configured to associate an image ID with
`the at least one random game output;
`a video server configured to store a plurality of images corresponding
`to at least one game, the video server configured to retrieve one or
`more images associated with the image ID, wherein the one or more
`images are representative of a game output, the video server
`configured to communicate the one or more images to the network
`access device; and
`a transactional system configured to credit monetary funds to a
`financial account of the user based on the at least one random game
`output.
`
`(Id. at 17.)
`
`E.
`
`The ’116 Patent
`
`An interactive gaming system for a casino property, the interactive gaming
`system comprising:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`a wireless device associated with a registered user, wherein the
`wireless device is used to determine a location of the registered user
`and the wireless device communicates with a network using at least
`one wireless networking protocol;
`a verification system that accesses a registration database having
`registration data associated with each registered user;
`a centralized gaming server communicatively coupled to the wireless
`device, the centralized gaming server generates at least one random
`game outcome;
`a memory module that stores a plurality of images corresponding to
`the at least one game outcome that are communicated to the
`wireless device;
`the centralized gaming server accesses the memory module and
`communicates the plurality of images corresponding to the random
`game outcome to the wireless device; and a casino player tracking
`system that includes,
`a registered user profile that further includes a plurality of user
`preferences,
`a record of a plurality of accumulated points associated with a
`betting activity of the registered user, wherein the betting
`activity is associated with the random outcomes generated by
`the centralized gaming server,
`at least one complimentary good or service corresponding to
`the accumulated points associated with the registered user;
`and
`a plurality of messages generated by the casino player
`tracking system for the wireless device regarding the
`complementary goods or services.
`
`(Id. at 20.)
`
`III. MOTIONS TO DISMISS
`
`The Court begins by reciting the legal standards governing its review of these
`
`motions. It then analyzes Claim 1 of the ’229 patent under the Alice framework as
`
`representative of the asserted claims of the ’454 and ’406 patents as well.6 The Court
`
`then analyzes Claim 1 of the ’407 patent under the Alice framework, followed by Claim 1
`
`the ’116 patent.7 Finally, the Court explains that it will not grant Plaintiff leave to amend,
`
`as amendment would be futile. Again, and as noted, because the Court finds Defendants’
`
`
`6Plaintiff stated that it did “not oppose treating the ’229 Patent as representative of
`the ’454 and ’406 Patents for the purposes of this § 101 analysis.” (ECF No. 47 at 16
`n.10.) Plaintiff also identifies claim 1 of the ’229 patent as exemplary, so the Court’s
`analysis of claim 1 applies to all other claims of the ’229 patent as well. (ECF No. 1 at 7.)
`
`7As noted, Plaintiff itself holds these two claims out as exemplary of the asserted
`claims of these two patents, so the Court’s findings as to these two claims apply to both
`patents more broadly. (ECF No. 1 at 17, 20.)
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`Alice arguments persuasive, it does not address any of the other arguments Defendants
`
`raised in their motions to dismiss.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`1.
`
`Motions to Dismiss
`
`A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which
`
`relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint must provide
`
`“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While
`
`Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than “labels and
`
`conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations
`
`must be enough to rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to
`
`survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a
`
`claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. at 570).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts must
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, a district court must accept as true all
`
`well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not
`
`entitled to the assumption of truth. See id. at 678. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause
`
`of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. See id. Second, a
`
`district court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a
`
`plausible claim for relief. See id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff’s
`
`complaint alleges facts that allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the
`
`defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See id. at 678. Where the complaint does
`
`not permit the Court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint
`
`has “alleged—but it has not show[n]—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679
`
`(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That is insufficient.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`When the claims in a complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible,
`
`the complaint must be dismissed. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
`
`2.
`
`Alice
`
`Under Section 101 of the Patent Act, an inventor may obtain a patent on “any new
`
`and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
`
`useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Courts, however, “have long held that this
`
`provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena,
`
`and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (quoting Ass’n for Molecular
`
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). The concern behind these
`
`excepted categories is “one of pre-emption”—if an inventor could obtain patent protection
`
`over these “building blocks of human ingenuity,” then the patent scheme would work to
`
`undermine, not promote, future innovation. Id. But courts are careful to balance concerns
`
`over preemption with the fact that “all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest
`
`upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Mayo Collaborative
`
`Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012). Thus, where an invention
`
`moves beyond an abstract idea by applying it “to a new and useful end,” the invention will
`
`meet the Section 101 standard. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson,
`
`409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`
`Considering these competing concerns, the Supreme Court has developed a two-
`
`part test to assess whether a patent covers an abstract idea. First, courts must determine
`
`whether a patent’s claims are directed to a “patent-ineligible concept[,]” such as an
`
`abstract idea. Id. Abstract ideas may be “preexisting, fundamental truth[s]” such as
`
`mathematical equations, and also encompass “method[s] of organizing human activity”
`
`or “longstanding commercial practice[s]” like intermediated settlement or risk hedging. Id.
`
`25
`
`at 220.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Second, if a court “determine[s] that the patent is drawn to an abstract idea or
`
`otherwise ineligible subject matter,” then that court examines “whether the remaining
`
`elements, either in isolation or combination with the non-patent-ineligible elements, are
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`sufficient to ‘transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.’”
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Capital One”), 792 F.3d 1363,
`
`1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
`
`Whether a patent is eligible under § 101 is a question of law that may be
`
`determined at the dismissal stage. See Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
`
`Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reviewing a § 101 determination
`
`de novo but noting that the legal issue on review “may contain underlying factual issues”);
`
`see also Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (affirming a district court’s granting of a motion to dismiss on § 101 grounds).
`
`B.
`
`Discussion
`
`To start, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motions to dismiss are premature and
`
`therefore noncompliant with LPR 1-4(c)8 because there are threshold factual issues the
`
`Court must resolve before determining invalidity and “there will be significant claim
`
`construction disputes” in this case. (ECF No. 47 at 15.) However, and as Defendants
`
`argue (ECF Nos. 51 at 13-14, 52 at 8), Plaintiff does not specify what those factual issues
`
`and claim construction disputes are (see generally ECF No. 47). Moreover, having
`
`reviewed the asserted patents, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the Court
`
`cannot say what those factual issues and claim construction disputes—rendering an Alice
`
`analysis of the asserted patents premature—would be. The Court will address the merits
`
`of the parties’ Alice arguments now. See Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prod., Inc., 983
`
`F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding that neither conclusory statements nor
`
`unexplained, potential claim construction disputes prevent a district court from addressing
`
`patent eligibility at the pleadings stage).
`
`24
`
`///
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`8LPR 1-4(c) provides, “A party moving to dismiss one or more claims as patent-
`ineligible under § 101 must demonstrate in its motion, if appropriate, that there is no
`factual issue, claim construction or otherwise, that the court need determine before
`deciding dismissal under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The filing of a § 101 motion before a Claim
`Construction Order must not delay any date in the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order,
`unless otherwise ordered by the court.”
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`1.
`
`’229 Patent9
`
`The Court addresses below both steps of the Alice analysis as to Claim 1 of the
`
`’229 patent because it is drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`a.
`
`Alice Step One
`
`Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is directed to the abstract idea of remotely playing a slot
`
`machine on a server. (ECF No. 1-1 at 19.) As Playtika argues, Claim 1 of the ’229 patent
`
`is analogous to the claims found abstract in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x
`
`1005, 1007-08 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`(ECF No. 28 at 20.) And Plaintiff’s decision not to address Planet Bingo in response to
`
`Playtika’s motion to dismiss indeed suggests that Plaintiff has no convincing response.
`
`(ECF No. 47.) In Planet Bingo, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district
`
`court’s finding that patent claims directed to “managing a bingo game while allowing a
`
`player to repeatedly play the same sets of numbers in multiple sessions” were directed to
`
`an abstract idea. 576 F. App’x at 1007-08. There, the Federal Circuit described as
`
`exemplary a claim that recited “the steps of selecting, storing, and retrieving two sets of
`
`numbers, assigning a player identifier and a control number, and then comparing a
`
`winning set of bingo numbers with a selected set of bingo numbers.” Id. But this claim
`
`was directed to an abstract idea because “not only can these steps be ‘carried out in
`
`existing computers long in use,’ but they also can be ‘done mentally.’” Id. at 1008.
`
`The system described in Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is similar because it describes
`
`a slot machine that runs on a server. (ECF No. 1-1 at 19.) The components of this claim
`
`are all processes that could be carried out in existing computers, as evidenced by the fact
`
`that the ’229 patent’s specification does not describe any of the computerized
`
`components of the purported invention as novel or representing improvements on the
`
`prior art. (See generally id.; see also ECF No. 47 at 18-19 (effectively conceding that all
`
`component parts of the claim were routine).) And like the “rules for conducting a wagering
`
`
`9As noted supra, the Court’s analysis in this section applies with equal force to the
`’454 and ’406 patents.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`game” found abstract in In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 818, a slot machine described at the high
`
`level at which it is described in this claim is a “fundamental economic practice” like those
`
`previously found abstract in binding caselaw. Id. (citations omitted). And even while the
`
`system described in Claim 1 of the ’229 patent runs on a server, that does not make it
`
`any less abstract. See Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1367 (“And while the claims recite
`
`budgeting using a ‘communication medium’ (broadly including the Internet and telephone
`
`networks), that limitation does not render the claims any less abstract.”). This is contrary
`
`to Plaintiff’s primary argument where Plaintiff characterizes the centralized game server
`
`as one of the key inventive elements of all asserted patents. (ECF No. 47 at 17-19.)
`
`Plaintiff’s reliance on In re Smith is also misplaced. (ECF No. 47 at 21.) Plaintiff
`
`specifically relies on In re Smith to argue that not all patents directed to the gaming arts
`
`are categorically invalid. (Id.) While that is a fair characterization of one of the Federal
`
`Circuit’s statements in In re Smith, it does not render Claim 1 of the ’229 patent non-
`
`abstract. To the contrary, Claim 1 of the ’229 patent has more in common with the patent
`
`claims held invalid in In re Smith than it does with the hypothetical gaming patent
`
`described in In re Smith that may be patent eligible. See 815 F.3d at 818-19 (affirming
`
`the Board’s finding that a “wagering game is, effectively, a method of exchanging and
`
`resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the distribution of the
`
`cards.”). Like the claims at issue in In re Smith, which covered the rules of a card game,
`
`Claim 1 of the ’229 patent covers a slot machine that can be played remotely. And that
`
`slot machine is effectively a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations
`
`based on probabilities created by a generic random number generator. (ECF No. 1-1 at
`
`19.) See also In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 818-19.
`
`Further, Plaintiff’s argument that “the patents-in-suit are directed to technical
`
`improvements in online gaming systems” is unpersuasive because Claim 1 of the ’229
`
`patent does not explain how any of the purported technical improvements work.10 (ECF
`
`
`10To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is directed to
`improvements in computer functionality, the Court rejects that argument because nothing
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`No. 47 at 17.) Claim 1 includes a verification system that has registration data associated
`
`with registered users, but how does it make that association? (ECF No. 1-1 at 19.) Claim
`
`1 also includes a centralized gaming server that randomly generates a game outcome,
`
`but how does the centralized gaming server do that? (Id.) As another example, Claim 1
`
`includes a paytable module that determines the prizes associated with an outcome, but
`
`also does not explain how the paytable module does that.11 (Id.) See, e.g., Bot M8 LLC
`
`v. Sony Corp. of Am., 465 F. Supp. 3d 1013, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (currently on appeal)
`
`(“That’s a result, not a means to achieve it. So, up front it’s abstract.”). In general,
`
`Plaintiff’s argument that Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is directed to technical improvements
`
`in online gaming systems would be more persuasive if the claim itself explained how to
`
`accomplish any of the purported technical improvements it covers. See Elec. Power Grp.,
`
`LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Indeed, the essentially result-
`
`focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims
`
`held ineligible under § 101, especially in the area of using generic computer and network
`
`technology to carry out economic transactions.”).
`
`Even more generally, Plaintiff’s arguments sound in novelty or nonobviousness
`
`instead of effectively countering Playtika’s argument that Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is
`
`directed to an abstract idea. “But, a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(emphasis in original). And Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants’ noninfringement
`
`arguments contradict their arguments that the asserted patents are unpatentably abstract
`
`does not follow either. As Defendants reply, there is nothing contradictory about them
`
`
`in the claims or specification of the patent claims or discusses any sort of improvements
`in the computer components that make up the system. (ECF No. 1-1.) See RecogniCorp,
`LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Unlike Enfish, claim 1 does
`not claim a software method that improves the functioning of a computer. It claims a
`‘process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a
`tool.”’) (citations omitted).
`
`11The specification does provide an illustrative example of the rules governing the
`paytable’s programming, but the paytable as described in Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is
`written more broadly and left undefined because the example rules provided in the
`specification are merely illustrative. (Compare ECF No. 1-1 at 18-19 with id. at 19.)
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`arguing they do not infringe an abstract idea as Plaintiff has characterized it. (ECF Nos.
`
`51 at 11, 52 at 6.)
`
`In sum, Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is directed to the abstract idea of remotely
`
`playing a slot machine on a server, and none of Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are
`
`persuasive.
`
`b.
`
`Alice Step Two
`
`Moreover, Claim 1 of the ’229 patent lacks an inventive concept sufficient to
`
`transform the abstract idea described therein into a patent-eligible application. The ’229
`
`patent instead generally consists of a combination of generic computer elements
`
`performing conventional functions. For example, the ’229 patent describes networked
`
`interactive gaming over the internet as well known in the art, including secure methods
`
`for doing so. (ECF No. 1-1 at 12.) The specification also describes random number
`
`generators and paytables as known in the art. (Id.) The same goes for displays and
`
`encryption systems. (Id. at 12, 16.) But “[i]nstructing one to ‘apply’ an abstract idea and
`
`reciting no more than generic computer elements performing generic computer tasks
`
`does not make an abstract idea patent-eligible.” Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1368; see also
`
`Brit. Telecommunications PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, 813 F. App’x 584, 587 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (reciting generic computer hardware performing conventional steps does not
`
`constitute an inventive concept).
`
`Moreover, the features described in Claim 1 of the ’229 patent are described and
`
`claimed generically. (ECF No. 1-1 at 19 (describing the verification system, memory
`
`module, centralized gaming server, and paytable module based on what they can do
`
`instead of how they do it).) Claim 1 of the ’229 patent thus lacks an inventive concept
`
`sufficient to transform the abstract idea of remotely playing a slot machine on a server
`
`into a patent-eligible application. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`
`838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The features set forth in the claims are described
`
`and claimed generically rather than with the specificity necessary to show how those
`
`components provide a concrete solution to the problem addressed by the patent.”).
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 58 Filed 07/07/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Plaintiff first argues that
`
`“[w]hat was ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional’ at the priority date of the patents
`
`is a question of fact” not suitable for resolution at this stage of the litigation. (ECF No. 47
`
`at 23.) But that is not the case, where, as here, the specification of the asserted patent
`
`describes its own components as conventional. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green
`
`Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“In a situation where the
`
`specification admits the additional claim elements are well-understood, routine, and
`
`conventional, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for a patentee to show a genuine
`
`dispute.”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff next points to certain allegations in its Complaint
`
`“regarding the technical improvements claimed by the patents-in-suit[.]” (ECF No. 47 at
`
`23 (citing ECF No. 1 at 2-3).) But the Court instead agrees with Playtika that these alleged
`
`advantages “are at most all incidental advantages of using a generic server for its
`
`intended purpose and cannot therefore be considered inventive.” (ECF No. 51 at 12.) See
`
`also BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a
`
`claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional
`
`and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible
`
`application of an abstract idea.”).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Plaintiff finally argues that the patents in suit are at least as inventive as those
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`upheld in Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). (ECF No. 47 at 23-24.) In Bascom, the Federal Circuit found the claim
`
`at issue patent-eligible at Alice step two because it claimed and described the inventive
`
`concept of “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-
`
`users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” 827 F.3d at 1350.
`
`But Plaintiff does not persuasively explain how this finding applies to Claim 1 of the ’229
`
`patent, merely arguing that “the arrangement of all the components including the
`
`centralization of the game outcome and transmission of images relat