Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`Michael J. McCue
`Nevada Bar No. 06055
`Meng Zhong
`Nevada Bar No. 12145
`LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
`3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
`Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
`Tel: 702.949.8200
`E-mail: mmccue@LRRC.com
`E-mail: mzhong@LRRC.com
`
`Gerson S. Panitch (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Tel: 202-408-4080
`E-mail: gerson.panitch@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Playtika Ltd.
`and Playtika Holding Corp.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`NEXRF Corp.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Playtika Ltd., Playtika Holding Corp., and
`Caesars Interactive Entertainment LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A
`MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Memorandum and Points of Authorities ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`a.
`
`Jumbling of Parties, Products, and Patents ......................................................................... 2
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Two Accused Defendant Groups and Two Accused Product Groups ................... 2
`
`Five Patents, Two of Which Are Asserted Only Against Gambling
`Games ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`b.
`
`Critical Supporting Facts Missing from Complaint ............................................................ 4
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`No Factual Support for Infringement Allegations .................................................. 4
`
`No Factual Support for Allegations of Knowledge and Intent ............................... 4
`
`iii.
`
`No Specificity in Infringement Allegations ........................................................... 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS: Insufficient Pleading Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT: NEXRF’s Complaint Does Not Meet Minimum Pleading Standards ..................... 5
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Counts IV and V Are Inconsistent with and Not Supported by the Alleged Facts ............. 5
`
`By Accusing All Products as One, No Specific Basis Is Provided for Any ........................ 5
`
`The Infringement Counts Are Impermissibly Devoid of Factual Support .......................... 7
`
`NEXRF Did Not Properly Plead Willfulness and Indirect Infringement ............................ 8
`
`In the Alternative, NEXRF Must Make a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) ................. 10
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS: Abstract Ideas Are Not Patent Eligible .................................................. 11
`
`ARGUMENT: NEXRF’s Patents Are Ineligible, and This Suit Should Be Dismissed ................. 12
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Three Independent Claims Substantially Overlap ...................................................... 12
`
`Alice Step 1: The Patents Are Unpatentably Abstract ....................................................... 14
`
`Alice Step 2: The Patents Fail to Claim an Inventive Concept.......................................... 16
`
`This Case Should Be Stayed Until the Resolution of the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion ........................... 21
`
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc) .............................................................................. 19
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter,
`620 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................... 10
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ............................................................................. 1, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20
`
`Artrip v. Ball Corp.,
`735 F. App’x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................... 4-5, 9
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`465 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................ 16, 19
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`CG Tech. Dev. LLC v. Zynga, Inc.,
`No. 2:16–cv–00859–RCJ–VCF, 2017 WL 662489 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2017) .......................... 9
`
`CG Techs. Dev., LLC v. FanDuel, Inc.,
`No. 2:16–cv–00801–RCJ–VCF, 2017 WL 58572 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) ............................... 8
`
`Checksum Ventures, LLC v. Dell Inc.,
`412 F. Supp. 3d 906 (N.D. Ill. 2019) ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Curb Mobility, LLC v. Kaptyn, Inc.,
`434 F. Supp. 3d 854 (D. Nev. 2020) ................................................................................ 19, 20
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 20
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`ESCO Corp. v. Cashman Equip. Co.,
`158 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (D. Nev. 2016) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`Finn v. City of Boulder City,
`No. 2:14-cv-1835-JAD-GWF, 2015 WL 2186497 (D. Nev. May 6, 2015) ........................... 10
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
`818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Glob. Cash Access, Inc. v. NRT Tech. Corp.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00822-MMD-GWF, 2016 WL 1181669 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2016) .................... 21
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ......................................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 18-cv-06137-HSG, 2019 WL 1455336 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019) ..................................... 9
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 11-12
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 15, 20
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 11, 21
`
`NantWorks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-06262-LB, 2021 WL 24850 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2021) ............................................. 8
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 15, 21
`
`Pure Parlay, LLC v. Stadium Tech. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00834-GMN-BNW, 2020 WL 569880 (D. Nev. Feb. 5, 2020) ............... 5, 6, 7, 8
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................ 16-17
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Shortridge v. Found. Constr. Payroll Serv., LLC,
`No. 3:14-cv-04850-JCS, ECF No. 73 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015) .......................................... 15
`
`Silver State Intellectual Techs., Inc. v. FourSquare Labs, Inc.,
`No. 2:12–cv–01308–GMN–PAL, 2013 WL 5437363 (D. Nev. Sept. 26, 2013) ..................... 9
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`Slot Speaker Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-01161-HSG, 2017 WL 4354999 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) .................................. 9
`
`In re Smith,
`815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 15, 21
`
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`469 F. Supp. 3d 231 (D. Del. 2020) ....................................................................................... 21
`
`Veltmann v. Walpole Pharmacy, Inc.,
`928 F. Supp. 1161 (M.D. Fla. 1996) ...................................................................................... 10
`
`Voggenthaler v. Md. Square, LLC,
`No. 2:08–CV–1618–RCJ–GWF, 2010 WL 2998253 (D. Nev. July 22, 2010) ...................... 10
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,
`887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Zapfraud, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc.,
`No. 19-1688-CFC, 2020 WL 6822972 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2020) ........................................... 14
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ........................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ........................................................................................................... 1, 10, 22
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................................................................................. 1, 3, 11, 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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Playtika Ltd. and Playtika Holding Corp. (collectively, “Playtika”), by and
`
`through their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully submit their motion to dismiss Plaintiff
`
`NEXRF Corp.’s (“NEXRF”) Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”) or, in the alternative, for a more definitive statement under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 12(e), and a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. This
`
`motion is made and based on the pleadings and papers on file in this matter, the memorandum of
`
`points and authorities below, and any oral argument the Court may entertain.
`
`MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In 2001, when Nevada patent attorney Michael Kerr, the sole inventor on the patents in
`
`suit, first filed for patent protection, the law prevented Internet gambling. As the patents explain,
`
`Kerr saw a Nevada bill proposing to lift those restrictions, so using his patent attorney skills, he
`
`apparently rushed to file a patent to cover a change in the law, claiming to have invented
`
`conventional gambling, such as slot machines, over a conventional computer network. At the
`
`time, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Alice decision clarifying that these types of ideas
`
`are ineligible for patenting. The law is now clear that such patents are invalid, and therefore, for
`
`the reasons set forth in the second half of this Memorandum, the Court should declare the patents
`
`asserted against Playtika invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`In addition, the Complaint is so internally inconsistent and facially lacking that on three
`
`separate grounds, the Court should dismiss the Complaint or require a more definite statement.
`
`First, under the label of “Accused Products,” the Complaint jumbles together five products of
`
`unrelated companies, accusing Playtika of infringing patents that bear no resemblance to
`
`Playtika’s offerings. For example, the factual background section of the Complaint makes a
`
`distinction between Gambling Games offered by Caesars and Social Games offered by Playtika,
`
`acknowledging that Playtika is not in the gambling game business. Yet Counts IV and V of the
`
`Complaint inconsistently accuse Playtika of infringing Gambling Game patents—in the absence
`
`of any factual predicate.
`
`Second, for all 31 elements of the asserted claims, NEXRF relies solely on “information
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`
`and belief,” without identifying a single feature, or even a screenshot, of any of the five different
`
`accused products that matches any element of the claims. This omission leaves Playtika guessing
`
`about how, if at all, the asserted patents relate to the Playtika accused products, and violates
`
`precedent for properly pleading patent infringement, including case law of this Court.
`
`Third, in support of claims of willful infringement and indirect infringement—where the
`
`law requires particularized factual pleading—NEXRF makes bald allegations of knowledge and
`
`deliberateness, without any supporting facts. Such claims must also be dismissed under Federal
`
`Circuit precedent.
`
`
`
`Given the extensive deficiencies and Playtika’s inability to adequately understand the
`
`accusations and their bases, Playtika respectfully asserts that it is most judicially efficient to stay
`
`the proceedings until the Court resolves the issues raised in this motion. To this end, Defendants
`
`jointly filed a motion to stay while this motion is pending, so if this case were to move forward,
`
`Defendants may fairly understand the allegations against them before the parties and the Court
`
`expend further resources.
`
`2.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`a.
`
`Jumbling of Parties, Products, and Patents
`
`i.
`
`Two Accused Defendant Groups and Two Accused Product Groups
`
`NEXRF’s Complaint accuses two separate groups of defendants and two separate groups
`
`of products. The Defendant groups are “Playtika” (i.e., Playtika Ltd. and Playtika Holding Corp.)
`
`and “Caesars” (i.e., Caesars Interactive Entertainment, LLC). ECF No. 1 ¶¶12-14. The two
`
`product groups are Gambling Games (also referred to as “real-money games”) and Social
`
`Games. Id. ¶¶23-28. Gambling Games permit players to wager real money while Social Games
`
`do not. NEXRF acknowledges that although co-owned years ago, since 2016 when Caesars sold
`
`Playtika, the companies of each group are separate entities. Id. ¶19. Most significantly for
`
`purposes of this motion, NEXRF also acknowledges that the sale of Playtika “did not include …
`
`the real-money online gaming business.” Id. In fact, Playtika is a social gaming company with no
`
`involvement in Gambling Games. There appears to be no dispute on this point, as the factual
`
`background of NEXRF’s Complaint alleges that Caesars is in the business of real-money games,
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`
`but presents no such factual allegation about Playtika. Id. ¶¶26-27 & nn.8-10 (including citations
`
`to App Store and product webpages identifying “Caesars Interactive Entertainment” as the
`
`developer of Caesars Casino & Sportsbook, and not Playtika). This distinction is significant
`
`because after failing to allege any facts that Playtika is involved with Gambling Games, Counts
`
`IV and V of the Complaint inconsistently accuse Playtika of offering Gambling Games.
`
`ii.
`
`Five Patents, Two of Which Are Asserted Only Against Gambling
`Games
`
`Specifically, two of the five asserted patents are only asserted against Gambling Games,
`
`while the remaining three are asserted against both Social Games and Gambling Games.1 For
`
`example, Count IV, asserting the ’407 patent, alleges:
`
`Defendants infringe the asserted claims of the ʻ407 patent by making, using, importing,
`selling for importation, and/or selling after importation into the United States at least the
`Accused Gambling Games in violation of 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a)-(b).
`
`Id. ¶87. Count V, asserting the ’116 patent, similarly alleges:
`
`Defendants infringe the asserted claims of the ʻ116 patent by making, using, importing,
`selling for importation, and/or selling after importation into the United States at least the
`Accused Gambling Games in violation of 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a)-(b).
`
`Id. ¶101.
`
`The Complaint applies the following definitions: “Accused Gambling Games” refers to
`
`real-money games; “Accused Social Games” refers to free-to-play games; and “Accused Games”
`
`refers to both Accused Gambling Games and Accused Social Games. Id. ¶¶27-28. The term
`
`“Defendants” collectively refers to both the Playtika and the Caesars defendants. Id. at 1. This is
`
`of import because, as reflected in the excerpts of Counts IV and V above, the Complaint accuses
`
`all “Defendants” of infringing the two Gambling Games patents, despite an absence of factual
`
`allegations that Playtika has any involvement with Gambling Games.
`
`More specifically, while the factual background section of NEXRF’s Complaint
`
`identifies five accused products, only one—“Caesar’s Casino and Sports App”—is identified as
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The patents asserted against Gambling Games are USPN 8,506,407 (“the ’407 patent”) and
`9,373,116 (“the ’116 patent”). Id. ¶¶83-120. The patents asserted against both Social Games and
`Gambling Games are USPNs 8,747,229 (“the ’229 patent”), 8,506,406 (“the ’406 patent”), and
`9,646,454 (“the ’454 patent”). Id. ¶¶29-82.
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`an Accused Gambling Game. And NEXRF only alleges that Caesars offers that game. Id. ¶¶26-
`
`27 & nn. 8-10. Thus, there is no factual basis in the Complaint to accuse Playtika under counts
`
`
`
`related to Gambling Games.
`
`b.
`
`Critical Supporting Facts Missing from Complaint
`
`i.
`
`No Factual Support for Infringement Allegations
`
`Each of the five counts in the Complaint shares a common format: after introducing an
`
`asserted patent, separate paragraphs parrot the language of each claim element—each paragraph
`
`beginning with the words, “[o]n information and belief…,” but lacking any factual support for
`
`that information and belief. Thirty-one times NEXRF relies solely on the phrase “on information
`
`and belief” at the very heart of each infringement allegation. NEXRF does not provide factual
`
`support for the presence of even a single claim element in a single accused product, let alone an
`
`indication where the 31 claim elements are found in the five accused products.
`
`ii.
`
`No Factual Support for Allegations of Knowledge and Intent
`
`Each count of the Complaint alleges that “Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`[asserted] patent or were willfully blind to its existence,” attempting to entitle NEXRF to
`
`enhanced damages for willful infringement. Id. ¶¶34, 48, 69, 88, 102. In addition, the Complaint
`
`alleges indirect infringement (induced and contributory infringement) by the Defendants. Id.
`
`¶¶33, 47, 68, 87, 101. Yet the Complaint is devoid of any factual support for allegations that
`
`Playtika knew of any of the asserted patents before this suit was filed, let alone had any related
`
`willful or deliberate intent.
`
`iii.
`
`No Specificity in Infringement Allegations
`
`Although the Playtika and Caesars defendants are unrelated entities offering non-
`
`overlapping products, all the counts of the Complaint are directed against all Defendants, without
`
`any mapping of which products are alleged to infringe which patents.
`
`3.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS: Insufficient Pleading Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`A motion to dismiss should be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) “if a complaint
`
`does not contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
`
`plausible on its face.” Artrip v. Ball Corp., 735 F. App’x 708, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`
`quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). To survive a
`
`motion to dismiss, a plaintiff “must plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the
`
`reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Id. (citation
`
`omitted). “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.’” Pure
`
`Parlay, LLC v. Stadium Tech. Grp., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00834-GMN-BNW, 2020 WL 569880, at
`
`*1 (D. Nev. Feb. 5, 2020) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
`
`Furthermore, in assessing a motion to dismiss, the Court is required to take all material
`
`allegations as true and construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the Court is
`
`not required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
`
`fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.
`
`2001).
`
`4.
`
`ARGUMENT: NEXRF’s Complaint Does Not Meet Minimum Pleading
`Standards
`
`a.
`
`Counts IV and V Are Inconsistent with and Not Supported by the Alleged
`Facts
`
`A count of a complaint must be dismissed if all the facts, even if taken as true, do not
`
`support the count. Artrip, 735 F. App’x at 714. Here, as discussed in §2.a.ii., supra, the factual
`
`section of the Complaint correctly characterizes Playtika as a social gaming company that is not
`
`in the gambling game business; yet Counts IV and V inconsistently accuse “all Defendants,”
`
`including Playtika, of offering Accused Gambling Games. (Paragraphs 87-95 and 101-119
`
`respectively limit each of Counts IV and V to “Accused Gambling Games.”) Even if the Court
`
`takes the entire factual section of the Complaint as true, it lacks any facts to support that Playtika
`
`offers Gambling Games, and therefore Counts IV and V must be dismissed as to Playtika.
`
`b.
`
`By Accusing All Products as One, No Specific Basis Is Provided for Any
`
`NEXRF lumps together five accused products, in two separate categories, and offered by
`
`separate entities, failing to particularly explain how any single product infringes. Specifically, in
`
`paragraph 16 of the Complaint, NEXRF lumps under the label “Accused Products” unrelated
`
`products offered by unrelated entities. Then, in each count of the Complaint, NEXRF uses vague
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`language to avoid providing any factual allegation that any particular product infringes. Notice
`
`how, for example, in paragraph 58 of the Complaint, NEXRF switches from the plural, “Accused
`
`Games,” previously defined as a group of games, to “Accused Game” in the singular, and which
`
`
`
`is not defined in the Complaint:
`
`58. On information and belief, the Accused Games include that the network access
`device is configured to receive a plurality of broadcast images generated by the remote
`gaming system. The Accused Game application running on the user device includes
`instructions sufficient for the user device to be configured to receive the broadcast images
`from the central gaming server system and display one or more of those images to the
`user.
`
`The switch from plural to singular is not a typographical error. NEXRF uses this
`
`undefined singular construct 11 times in the Complaint. None of Playtika’s accused products
`
`broadcast images from a centralized game server as is alleged in paragraph 58. The ambiguity
`
`introduced by this inaccurate allegation leaves Playtika to guess what product is being accused.
`
`Is it a Caesars’ product? Is it a particular Playtika product that NEXRF misconstrued? Or maybe
`
`it is just a guess on NEXRF’s part because the paragraph is structured as being based on
`
`“information and belief,” without providing the information or basis for the belief.2 If NEXRF
`
`meant to allege this feature is present in only one game, Playtika deserves to know which one to
`
`fairly respond to the Complaint.
`
`Similarly, paragraph 42 of the Complaint refers to “the mobile application for the
`
`particular Accused Game.” No “particular Accused Game” is defined, leaving the parties to
`
`guess what particular game the sentence references. These are just two examples.
`
`While paragraphs 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 79, and 80 all refer to an undefined
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Playtika tried to resolve this matter directly with NEXRF before filing this motion, advising
`NEXRF that Playtika never broadcasts images from its gaming server, and asking NEXRF to
`explain its unsubstantiated contrary accusation. The code for the Playtika products is open for all
`to see on the Internet, making checking extremely easy. Despite that Playtika pointed out that
`NEXRF’s baseless allegation would appear to violate Rule 11, NEXRF declined to provide a
`substantive response, effectively saying, “We will tell you later.” Playtika respectfully asserts
`that the bare-bones level of factual support that Playtika seeks is a minimum requirement of a
`Complaint and is necessary for Playtika to respond to the allegations. See Pure Parlay, 2020 WL
`569880, at *2-3 (holding that plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim absent factual content
`indicating that defendant’s accused product practices each claim limitation of the asserted
`claims).
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`
`“Accused Game,” in all 31 instances where NEXRF alleges that Defendants’ Accused Games
`
`satisfy the claim elements, all Defendants are accused based on all games, and no specific detail
`
`of any game is mentioned. By being vague, NEXRF avoids providing the minimum facts
`
`necessary to support a claim that any one accused product infringes. NEXRF’s lack of specificity
`
`warrants dismissal under this Court’s precedent. See, e.g., Pure Parlay, 2020 WL 569880, at *3
`
`(dismissing a complaint for failing to provide factual content indicating how the accused product
`
`practices each element of the asserted claim, noting that “the Court does not have the materials
`
`necessary to compare the accused product with the [asserted patent]”).
`
`Moreover, even within the definition of Accused Games, the Complaint is vague. For
`
`example, paragraph 28 refers to exemplar “Accused Social Games,” which is later defined as a
`
`component of “Accused Games.” Yet in paragraph 20, the Complaint refers to a game called
`
`“Bingo Blitz,” not later included in the definition of Accused Games, and making it unclear as to
`
`whether Blitz Bingo is within or outside the claim of infringement. As a result, Playtika is not
`
`only unable to determine the scope of the products accused of infringement, it is also unable to
`
`determine which products are included within each count.
`
`c.
`
`The Infringement Counts Are Impermissibly Devoid of Factual Support
`
`Aside from the fact that NEXRF masks its specific infringement allegations by treating
`
`all accused products as if they were one, each count lacks the factual support required to survive
`
`a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Thirty-one times—for each element of each of the five asserted claims—
`
`NEXRF’s infringement counts simply parrot the claim language, and then restate the claim
`
`language by injecting common technical phraseology, such as by alleging that Playtika has a
`
`server that does X or Y. Each of these 31 statements is speculative, because each begins with the
`
`words “on information and belief,” without citing to any factual support for the information or
`
`belief. This Court previously rejected NEXRF’s style of pleading as failing to meet the threshold
`
`for notice pleading.
`
`In the Pure Parlay decision this Court issued last year, Pure Parlay’s complaint was
`
`dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for pleading in precisely the same deficient way NEXRF
`
`pleaded here. In that case, Pure Parlay provided one factual allegation to support a claim that had
`
`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
`
`113611911.1
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 28 Filed 02/18/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`
`12 elements. This Court dismissed Pure Parlay’s complaint because, at least for the other 11
`
`elements, Pure Parlay cited no “exhibits depicting the accused products,” nor did it provide any
`
`“materials necessary to compare the accused product with the [asserted patent].”3 Pure Parlay,
`
`2020 WL 569880, at *3. Absent such factual content, a “Plaintiff does not state a plausible
`
`claim.” Id. For the same reasons this Court dismissed Pure Parlay’s complaint, so too should it
`
`dismiss NEXRF’s Complaint.
`
`d.
`
`NEXRF Did Not Properly Plead Willfulness and Indirect Infringement
`
`Without any factual support, each count of NEXRF’s Complaint repeats that defendants
`
`“were willfully blind to [the patents’] existence and their infringement no later than the filing of
`
`this action.” ECF No. 1 ¶¶34, 48, 69, 88, 102. There is no factual basis anywhere in the
`
`Complaint that Playtika knew or had reason to know of the accused patents. In the absence of
`
`such proof, unsupported allegations of willfulness must be dismissed. CG Techs. Dev., LLC v.
`
`FanDuel, Inc., No. 2:16–cv–00801–RCJ–VCF, 2017 WL 58572, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan.