`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BETEIRO, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRAFTKINGS INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`No. 1:21-cv-20148
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O’HEARN, District Judge.
`
`THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant DraftKings Inc.’s (“Defendant”)
`
`Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 9), the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Beteiro, LLC (“Plaintiff”), (ECF
`
`No. 1); and
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, this case is one of several related cases presently pending before this Court
`
`raising essentially the same patent infringement claims, Beteiro, LLC v. PointsBet USA, Inc., No.
`
`21-20155 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 22, 2021); Beteiro, LLC v. BetMGM, LLC, No. 21-20156 (D.N.J. filed
`
`Nov. 22, 2021); Beteiro, LLC v. Hard Rock Tristate AC LLC, No. 21-20157 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 22,
`
`2021); Beteiro, LLC v. Hillside N.J. LLC, No. 21-20158 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 22, 2021); Beteiro, LLC
`
`v. Betfair Interactive US LLC, No. 22-00577 (D.N.J. filed Feb. 4, 2022); Beteiro, LLC v. Kindred
`
`Grp. plc, No. 22-01536 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 18, 2022); and
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, in each case, Plaintiff alleges that the applicable defendants infringed specific
`
`claims within four U.S. patents it owns: (i) U.S. Patent No. 9,965,920; (ii) U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,043,341; (iii) U.S. Patent No. 10,147,266; and (iv) U.S. Patent No. 10,255,755 (collectively,
`
`“the Patents-in-Suit”); but
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-20148-CPO-SAK Document 25 Filed 09/07/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 396
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, in its recently-filed Opinion disposing of the motion to dismiss in Beteiro,
`
`LLC v. BetMGM, LLC, No. 21-20156, slip op. (D.N.J. Sept. 6, 2022), this Court found that the
`
`relevant claims of the Patents-in-Suit were directed at patent-ineligible subject matter and were
`
`therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and
`
`WHEREAS, for precisely the same reasons as in that case, Plaintiff cannot state a claim
`
`in this case for patent infringement, see, e.g., Open Parking, LLC v. ParkMe, Inc., No. 15-00976,
`
`2016 WL 3547957, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2016), aff’d, 683 F. App’x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and
`
`WHEREAS, likewise, Plaintiff’s willful infringement claims cannot survive, see
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 3d 247, 249–52 (D. Del. 2021); and
`
`therefore
`
`IT IS HEREBY on this 7th day of September , 2022,
`
`ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED; and it is finally
`
`ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall close this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHRISTINE P. O’HEARN
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`