NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`PLANET BINGO, LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`VKGS LLC (doing business as Video King),
`Defendant-Appellee.
`______________________
`
`2013-1663
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Western District of Michigan in No. 12-CV-0219, Judge
`Robert Holmes Bell.
`______________________
`
`Decided: August 26, 2014
`______________________
`
`KAREN J.S. FOUTS, Weiss & Moy, P.C., of Grand Rap-
`ids, Michigan, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With her on
`the brief were VERONICA-ADELE R. CAO and KENNETH M.
`MOTOLENICH-SALAS, of Scottsdale, Arizona.
`
`STEVEN L. UNDERWOOD, Price Heneveld LLP, of
`Grand Rapids, Michigan, argued for defendant-appellee.
`With him on the brief was MATTHEW J. GIPSON.
`______________________
`
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG-1049
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`PLANET BINGO, LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`VKGS LLC (doing business as Video King),
`Defendant-Appellee.
`______________________
`
`2013-1663
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Western District of Michigan in No. 12-CV-0219, Judge
`Robert Holmes Bell.
`______________________
`
`Decided: August 26, 2014
`______________________
`
`KAREN J.S. FOUTS, Weiss & Moy, P.C., of Grand Rap-
`ids, Michigan, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With her on
`the brief were VERONICA-ADELE R. CAO and KENNETH M.
`MOTOLENICH-SALAS, of Scottsdale, Arizona.
`
`STEVEN L. UNDERWOOD, Price Heneveld LLP, of
`Grand Rapids, Michigan, argued for defendant-appellee.
`With him on the brief was MATTHEW J. GIPSON.
`______________________
`
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG-1049
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
` PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC
`
`Before TARANTO, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
`Planet Bingo, LLC, owns two patents for computer-
`aided management of bingo games. After Planet Bingo
`filed an infringement action against VKGS, LLC, the
`district court granted summary judgment of invalidity,
`concluding that the patents do not claim patentable
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because a straight-
`forward application of the Supreme Court’s recent holding
`in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
`(2014), leads us to the same result, we affirm.
`I
`Planet Bingo alleged that VKGS infringed U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,398,646 and 6,656,045. The ’045 patent states that
`it is a continuation of the ’646 patent. The claims at issue
`recite computer-aided methods and systems for managing
`the game of bingo. Generally, the claims recite storing a
`player’s preferred sets of bingo numbers; retrieving one
`such set upon demand, and playing that set; while simul-
`taneously tracking the player’s sets, tracking player
`payments, and verifying winning numbers. See, e.g., ’646
`patent col. 8 l. 45–col. 9 l. 18, col. 9 l. 33–col. 10 l. 13.
`Variations between the claims include display capabilities
`and options to purchase sets of bingo numbers.
`Following a Markman order, VKGS filed a motion for
`summary judgment that the asserted claims are directed
`to a patent-ineligible concept. Applying the majority
`opinion’s approach in CLS Bank International v. Alice
`Corp., 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc), the dis-
`trict court determined that “each method claim encom-
`passes the abstract idea of managing/playing the game of
`Bingo.” Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC, 961 F. Supp.
`2d 840, 851 (W.D. Mich. 2013). The district court deter-
`mined that the use of a computer in the method claims
`“adds nothing more than the ability to manage . . . Bingo
`
`2
`
`
`
`PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC
`
`3
`
`more efficiently,” id. at 852, and that “the limitations of
`the system claims are the same as the limitations of the
`method claims that failed to result in an ‘inventive con-
`cept,’” id. at 854. The district court stated that the sys-
`tem claims employ a computer “only for its most basic
`functions,” including “storing numbers, assigning identifi-
`ers, allowing for basic inputs and outputs, printing of a
`receipt, displaying of numbers, and/or matching . . . for
`verification.” Id. at 854–55. The court granted summary
`judgment on the grounds that all of the asserted claims
`are invalid under § 101. Id. at 857.
`Planet Bingo appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`II
`We review the grant of summary judgment under the
`law of the regional circuit. Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v.
`Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`The Sixth Circuit reviews the grant or denial of summary
`judgment de novo. Tompkins v. Crown Corr, Inc., 726
`F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2013). We review de novo whether
`a claim is valid under § 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,
`1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful
`process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
`or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101. The Supreme Court has “long held that this provi-
`sion contains an important implicit exception: Laws of
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
`patentable.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Ass’n for
`Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct.
`2107, 2116 (2013)); see also Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
`63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discov-
`ered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts
`are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific
`and technological work.”). But the application of these
`concepts to new and useful ends remains eligible for
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
` PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC
`
`patent protection. Id. at 2355. Accordingly, the Court
`has described a framework for identifying patent-eligible
`claims, wherein a court must determine whether the
`claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept
`and, if so, whether additional elements in the claims
`transform the claims into a patent-eligible application.
`Id.
`
`A
`As a preliminary matter, we agree with the district
`court that there is no meaningful distinction between the
`method and system claims or between the independent
`and dependent claims. See Planet Bingo, 961 F. Supp. 2d
`at 854, 857. The system claims recite the same basic
`process as the method claims, and the dependent claims
`recite only slight variations of the independent claims.
`In this case, the claims at issue are drawn to patent-
`ineligible subject matter. The ’646 and ’045 patents claim
`managing a bingo game while allowing a player to repeat-
`edly play the same sets of numbers in multiple sessions.
`The district court correctly concluded that managing the
`game of bingo “consists solely of mental steps which can
`be carried out by a human using pen and paper.” Planet
`Bingo, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 851. Claim 7 of the ’646 patent,
`for example, recites the steps of selecting, storing, and
`retrieving two sets of numbers, assigning a player identi-
`fier and a control number, and then comparing a winning
`set of bingo numbers with a selected set of bingo numbers.
`’646 patent col. 9 l. 33–col. 10 l. 13. Like the claims at
`issue in Benson, not only can these steps be “carried out
`in existing computers long in use,” but they also can be
`“done mentally.” 409 U.S. at 67.
`Planet Bingo argues that “in real world use, literally
`thousands, if not millions of preselected Bingo numbers
`are handled by the claimed computer program,” making it
`impossible for the invention to be carried out manually.
`Appellant’s Reply Br. 14. But the claimed inventions do
`
`4
`
`
`
`PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC
`
`5
`
`not require as much. At most, the claims require “two
`sets of Bingo numbers,” “a player,” and “a manager.” ’646
`patent col. 8 ll. 54–55, col. 9 l. 17; see also ’045 patent
`col. 9 ll. 5–6. We need not, and do not, address whether a
`claimed invention requiring many transactions might tip
`the scales of patent eligibility, as the claims fall far short
`of capturing an invention that necessarily handles “thou-
`sands, if not millions” of bingo numbers or players.
`Moreover, the claims here are similar to the claims at
`issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010), and
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347, which the Supreme Court held
`were directed to “abstract ideas.” For example, the claims
`here recite methods and systems for “managing a game of
`Bingo.” ’646 patent col. 8 l. 46; see also id. col. 9 l. 33; ’045
`patent col. 8 l. 64. This is similar to the kind of “organiz-
`ing human activity” at issue in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
`And, although the ’646 and ’045 patents are not drawn to
`the same subject matter at issue in Bilski and Alice, these
`claims are directed to the abstract idea of “solv[ing a]
`tampering problem and also minimiz[ing] other security
`risks” during bingo ticket purchases. Appellant’s Br. 10,
`20. This is similar to the abstract ideas of “risk hedging”
`during “consumer transactions,” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231,
`and “mitigating settlement risk” in “financial transac-
`tions,” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57, that the Supreme
`Court found ineligible. Thus, we hold that the subject
`matter claimed in the ’646 and ’045 patents is directed to
`an abstract idea.
`
`B
`Abstract ideas may still be patent-eligible if they con-
`tain an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the
`claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo Collaborative
`Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294,
`1298 (2012)).
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
` PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC
`
`Apart from managing a game of bingo, the claims at
`issue also require “a computer with a central processing
`unit,” “a memory,” “an input and output terminal,” “a
`printer,” in some cases “a video screen,” and “a program
`. . . enabling” the steps of managing a game of bingo. ’646
`patent col. 8 ll. 45–53, col. 9 l. 29. These elements, in
`turn, select, store, and retrieve two sets of numbers,
`assign a player identifier and a control number, and then
`compare a winning set of bingo numbers with a selected
`set of bingo numbers.
`“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a
`mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .
`a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot
`impart patent
`eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132
`S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic
`computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
`Planet Bingo argues that the patents recite “signifi-
`cantly more” than an abstract idea because the invention
`includes “complex computer code with three distinct
`subparts.” Appellant’s Br. 33, 38. We disagree. The ’646
`and ’045 patents do not claim the “accounting program,”
`“ticket program,” and “verification program” that Planet
`Bingo identifies in its briefs. Instead, the claims recite a
`program that is used for the generic functions of storing,
`retrieving, and verifying a chosen set of bingo numbers
`against a winning set of bingo numbers. And, as was the
`case in Alice, “the function performed by the computer at
`each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’” Alice,
`134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298).
`Accordingly, we hold that the claims at issue do not
`have an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the
`claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
`III
`We have considered Planet Bingo’s remaining argu-
`ments and find them unpersuasive. Applying the Su-
`
`6
`
`
`
`PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC
`
`7
`
`preme Court’s precedents, the claims at issue are invalid
`under § 101.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
