Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 1 of 42
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`IGT and IGT CANADA SOLUTIONS ULC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`ZYNGA INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZYNGA INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 42
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`
`BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ASSERTED PATENTS ...................................1 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................5 
`
`A. 
`
`The ’089 Patent ........................................................................................................5 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`“software authorization agent” ....................................................................5 
`
`“gaming software” .......................................................................................7 
`
`“gaming machine” .......................................................................................9 
`
`B. 
`
`The ’473 Patent ......................................................................................................12 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`“website server” .........................................................................................12 
`
`“first gaming server” ..................................................................................16 
`
`“second gaming server” .............................................................................19 
`
`C. 
`
`The ’212 Patent ......................................................................................................20 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`4. 
`
`“publishing” ...............................................................................................20 
`
`“high-level function” .................................................................................23 
`
`“node” ........................................................................................................27 
`
`D. 
`
`The ’791 Patent ......................................................................................................29 
`
`1. 
`
`“determine instances of probable collusion between players” ..................29 
`
`E. 
`
`The ’189 Patent ......................................................................................................32 
`
`1. 
`
`“establishing” and “re-established” “communications link” .....................32 
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................34 
`
`IV. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 3 of 42
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................ 9, 12
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 7, 9, 15
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................................ 24
`
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013), The ‘473 ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Brunswick Corporation,
`773 Fed. Appx. 611 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 29
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC. v. Google LLC,
`10 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................................. 19
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................... 24, 27
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada),
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................................. 24
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`No. W-19-CV-00179-ADA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250950
`(W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2020) ................................................................................................................... 30
`
`Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................................ 28
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc.,
`663 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`Honeywell Int’l. Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`IQASR LLC v. Wendt Corp.,
`825 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 25, 26
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
`MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................................ 23
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ................................................................................................................... 23, 24
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................................ 1, 19
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`Personalized Media Commc’n v. Apple Inc.,
`952 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Semiconductor Connections LLC v. Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. Ltd.,
`No. 6-20-CV-00109 (W.D. Tex. April 9, 2021) ................................................................................... 15
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir.) ................................................................................................................. 30
`
`Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States,
`714 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................... 15, 19
`
`In Re Walter,
`698 F. App’x 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 5 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`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.
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Title
`Intentionally omitted
`U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089
`U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212
`U.S. Patent No. 8,708,791
`U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189
`IGT Opp’n to Zynga’s Substantive Mot. 3, Pat. Interf. No. 105,747 (RES), bearing
`Bates numbers ZYNGA00006355-ZYNGA00006386 [IGT Opp. 3]
`Declaration of Michael T. Goodrich PhD Regarding Claim Construction
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002), bearing Bates numbers
`ZYNGA00006387-ZYNGA00006389
`IGT Substantive Mot. 1, Pat. Interf. No. 105,747 (RES), bearing Bates numbers
`ZYNGA00006207-ZYNGA00006266
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, dated
`November 3, 2004 (Non-Final Rejection)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, dated
`February 3, 2005 (Response)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, dated
`July 15, 2005 (Non-Final Rejection)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, dated
`November 18, 2005 (Response)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, dated
`April 17, 2007 (Final Rejection)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, dated
`June 14, 2007 (Response)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, dated
`August 7, 2007 (Notice of Allowance)
`Excerpts from IEEE 100. The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms
`(7th ed. 2000), bearing Bates numbers ZYNGA00006390-ZYNGA00006396
`Excerpts from Beginning Java Networking (2001), bearing Bates numbers
`ZYNGA00006435-ZYNGA00006438
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212, dated June 8, 2011
`(Non-Final Rejection)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212, dated October 3,
`2011 (Response to Non-Final Rejection)
`Specification comparison of application number 10/120,635, the ’212 patent’s claimed
`parent application, and 11/842,147, the continuation-in-part application that issued as
`the ’212 patent
`Excerpt from the Parent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212, dated
`December 17, 2004 (Amendment)
`Excerpt from the Parent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212, dated May
`22, 2006 (Response to Comm. re 10/120,635 Application)
`Excerpt from the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212, dated May 2, 2012
`(Final Rejection)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 6 of 42
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Excerpts from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary (10th Edition 2003),
`bearing Bates numbers ZYNGA00006405-ZYNGA00006412
`Excerpts from the Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms (6th Edition 1998),
`bearing Bates numbers ZYNGA00006418-ZYNGA00006425
`Excerpts from Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary (2004), bearing
`Bates numbersZYNGA00006439-ZYNGA00006448
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999), bearing Bates numbers
`ZYNGA00006426-ZYNGA00006434
`Excerpts from Bill Brogden, SOAP Programming with Java (2002), bearing Bates
`numbers ZYNGA00006397-ZYNGA00006404
`Excerpts from Mark Nadelson and Tom Hagan , C++ Objects for Making UNIX and
`WinNT Talk, (2000), bearing Bates numbers ZYNGA00006468-ZYNGA00006491
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 7 of 42
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs IGT and IGT Canada Solutions ULC (“IGT”) assert six patents against Zynga
`
`that relate to gaming machines. The patents’ claimed inventions are fundamentally directed to
`
`real world casino gaming machines, though IGT asserts them against a suite of Zynga’s online
`
`mobile games. All told, IGT asserts more than 80 claims spread across the six asserted patents.
`
`It also somehow maintains that not a single claim term requires construction. But this position
`
`contradicts (a) the clear file history disclaimers that require the “website server” and “gaming
`
`servers” in the ’473 patent to be separate devices, (b) IGT’s prior admission that the term
`
`“software authorization agent” in the ’089 patent does not have a plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`and (c) the fact that Zynga’s proposed constructions for the ’089 patent include constructions that
`
`IGT itself proposed in an interference proceeding relating to that patent. See infra, Sections
`
`III.A.1-2 and III.B.1-3. In fact, for each term as to which IGT proposes a plain and ordinary
`
`meaning construction, there is a fundamental substantive dispute between the parties as to what
`
`the term or phrase means. These underlying disputes must be resolved. See, e.g., O2 Micro Int’l
`
`Ltd. v Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`IGT’s Complaint asserts six patents against Zynga: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,168,089 (“the ’089
`
`patent”), 7,303,473 (“the ’473 patent”), 8,266,212 (“the ’212 patent”), 8,708,791 (“the ’791
`
`patent”), 8,795,064 (“the ’064 patent”), and 9,159,189 (“the ’189 patent”) (collectively,
`
`“Asserted Patents”). IGT has alleged infringement of claims 28, 29, 31-33, 47-50, 84-86, 89-92,
`
`and 99-100 of the ’089 patent, claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 20-24, and 26-37 of the ’473 patent,
`
`claims 24, 27-29, 31, and 34-36 of the ’212 patent, claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 13 of the ’791 patent,
`
`claims 9-13, 15, and 17-18 of the ’064 patent, and claims 1, 4-8, 10 and 13-17 of the ’189 patent
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 8 of 42
`
`(collectively, “Asserted Claims”). The following is a brief overview of the five Asserted Patents
`
`for which there are claim terms in dispute.
`
`The ’089 patent (“Secured Virtual Network in a Gaming Environment”). The ’089
`
`patent is directed to methods for validating and authorizing the transfer and download of
`
`“gaming software”—like a poker or blackjack game or a part of a poker or blackjack game—
`
`from a “first gaming device” to a “second gaming device.” Ex. 2, ’089 patent, 4:28-56. The
`
`“first gaming device” can be a remote server that hosts the software. Id., 6:42-62. The “second
`
`gaming device,” in the context of claims 28 and 84, is operated by a user or player. Id., 1:30-33;
`
`6:42-52. When the user of the second gaming device requests software from the first gaming
`
`device (i.e., the server), the server transmits an “authorization message” with information about
`
`the user and requested software to a separate “software authorization agent.” Id., 6:15-25. The
`
`software authorization agent reviews the message and replies to the server either allowing or
`
`denying the transfer or download of the software. Id. In other words, the “software
`
`authorization agent,” which can be a “conventional data server,” functions to “approve[] all
`
`gaming software transactions between two gaming devices in the gaming software distribution
`
`network and stores a record of the gaming software transactions.” Id., 24:32-42.
`
`According to the ’089 patent, use of this type of “gaming software authorization agent …
`
`allow[s] gaming software to be electronically transferred between gaming devices … in a
`
`manner that may be easily monitored and regulated.” Id., 25:1-10. Figure 9, which is
`
`reproduced below, provides an example of the claimed method:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
`The ’473 patent (“Network Gaming System”). This patent claims a system of
`
`hardware components (or a method of operating those components) that allows players to play
`
`games using a remote device. See Ex. 3. The asserted claims include many limitations relating,
`
`for example, to how the claimed components interact with a remote player to provide logon and
`
`game display data for different games and determine which gaming server to select based on the
`
`game selection received from the player. For purposes of this brief, and focusing on claim 1 as
`
`an example, the most important limitations are that (a) the claimed components must include a
`
`“website server,” a “first gaming server,” and a “second gaming server,” and (b) each of these
`
`servers must be a separate device pursuant to clear and unmistakable disclaimers in the file
`
`history. See, e.g., Ex. 3, claim 1; infra, Section III.B.1-3.
`
`The ’212 patent (“Game Talk Service Bus”). This patent is directed to a gaming
`
`network that makes use of “a publish-and-subscribe message bus.” Ex. 4, Abstract. The bus
`
`allows devices like gaming machines and servers “to publish services or subscribe to services” in
`
`a “standardized” way, enabling the devices to “‘talk’ together” and, as a result, supports “a
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 10 of 42
`
`complex distributed casino gaming system that may include thousands of devices manufactured
`
`by dozens of vendors.” Id.
`
`The two asserted independent claims (claims 24 and 31) are method claims. In claim 24,
`
`a gaming machine is coupled to a communication bus; the gaming machine publishes a “high-
`
`level function” over the communication bus; the gaming machine receives and accepts a request
`
`to subscribe to that function from a node coupled to the bus; and, when updates occur during a
`
`gaming session, the gaming machine makes a call back to the node that returns a result of the
`
`execution of the high-level function. Claim 31 is the same, except that the roles of two claimed
`
`devices, the “gaming machine” and “node,” are reversed: the node publishes the high-level
`
`function and provides call backs while the gaming machine subscribes to the function.
`
`The ’791 patent (“Detecting and Preventing Bots and Cheating in Online
`
`Gaming.”). This patent claims a method of providing an online wagering game in which
`
`players’ game-play data is collected and analyzed by a game server in order to “determine
`
`individual players’ typical gaming styles and times of deviation from the typical gaming styles.”
`
`Ex. 5, claim 1. It further requires that the game server compare “times of deviation from players’
`
`typical gaming styles to determine instances of probable collusion between players.” Id. Claim
`
`1 is the only independent claim in the patent.
`
`The ’189 patent (“Mobile Gaming Device Carrying out Uninterrupted Game
`
`Despite Communications Link Disruption.”). IGT has asserted one independent method claim
`
`(claim 1) and one independent system claim (claim 10) from this patent. Ex. 6. Each claim has
`
`substantially similar limitations. The method of claim 1 requires “establishing a wireless
`
`communications link between a mobile gaming device, operated by a player, and a stationary
`
`gaming terminal that carries out a gaming program.” The claim further requires (a) displaying
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 11 of 42
`
`game animation to indicate the game is occurring, (b) transmitting signals from the stationary
`
`gaming terminal to the mobile gaming device identifying the outcome of the game and award to
`
`be played to the player, (c) stopping the game animation, and (d) displaying the final outcome
`
`and the award. Id., claim 1. The crux of the alleged invention relates to what happens if there is
`
`“communications link failure” between the stationary gaming terminal and the mobile gaming
`
`device after the game has started but before the outcome and award have been received by the
`
`device. If this happens, the game animation is extended “beyond a typical time for the game
`
`until the communications link has been re-established.” Id. Thereafter, the stationary gaming
`
`terminal carries out steps (b)-(d) identified above “such that the game perceived by the player is
`
`not interrupted during the communication link failure.” Id.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’089 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“software authorization agent”
`
`Term in dispute
`
`“software authorization
`agent”
`
`Zynga’s Proposed
`Construction
`“a device that authorizes (that is
`approves or rejects) specific
`transfers of gaming software
`based on applicable rules, and
`monitors (that is tracks) these
`transfers”
`
`IGT’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary
`(plain and ordinary meaning)
`
`The parties dispute both whether the term “software authorization agent” needs to be
`
`construed and what type of “agent” it requires. Zynga’s proposed construction is identical to the
`
`express definition IGT provided in a related interference proceeding and is consistent with the
`
`other intrinsic evidence.
`
`The term “software authorization agent” does not have a plain and ordinary meaning. It
`
`is not found in technical dictionaries and is not routinely used by other patents or publications.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 12 of 42
`
`In fact, IGT has expressly acknowledged that the “term lacks a clear and ordinary meaning.”
`
`Ex.7, IGT Opp’n to Zynga’s Substantive Mot. 3, Pat. Interf. No. 105,747 (RES), 3. Because the
`
`term has no plain and ordinary meaning, it “cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in
`
`the specification.” Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`
`also Honeywell Int’l. Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 488 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(“Without a customary meaning of a term within the art, the specification usually supplies the
`
`best context for deciphering claim meaning.”).
`
`The “software authorization agent” in the ’089 patent authorizes and monitors the transfer
`
`and download of software from one device to another. For instance, the patent explains that the
`
`“software authorization agent” can be a “conventional data server” that “approves all gaming
`
`software transactions between two gaming devices in the gaming software distribution network”
`
`and “stores a record of the gaming software transactions.” Ex. 2, ’089 patent, 24:32-43.
`
`Similarly, the patent explains that “the transfer of gaming software between the two gaming
`
`devices may be authorized and monitored by a software authorization agent” for “regulatory and
`
`tracking purposes.” Id., 4:37-40, Abstract. According to the patent, “gaming software that is
`
`used to play a game of chance on a gaming machine is typically highly regulated to ensure fair
`
`play and prevent cheating.” Id., 24:50-53. For this reason, “it is important for a gaming
`
`regulatory entity to know what gaming software is installed on a gaming machine at any
`
`particular time.” Id., 24:54-56. The “software authorization agent” fulfills this need by both (i)
`
`authorizing software transfer requests, and (ii) monitoring and recording software transfers. Id.,
`
`4:37-40; 24:32-43.
`
`IGT previously construed the term in exactly the same way Zynga now proposes in an
`
`interference proceeding involving the ’089 patent. See Ex. 7, 3. IGT’s statements in that
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 13 of 42
`
`interference are part of the intrinsic record for purposes of claim construction. See Aylus
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that statements made
`
`during “post-issuance proceedings before the PTO” bear on claim scope just like those made
`
`during “pre-issuance prosecution”). Thus, Zygna’s construction is supported both by the ’089
`
`patent specification itself and the express, binding definition of the term “software authorization
`
`agent” that IGT provided to the PTO. See id.; see also Personalized Media Commc’n v. Apple
`
`Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that claim construction must take into account
`
`any “express representations made by the applicant regarding the scope of the claims” during
`
`prosecution). Even if IGT’s interference statements did not constitute an express definition, at
`
`the very least they necessitate rejection of IGT’s “plain and ordinary” construction. It is
`
`improper for a patent owner to argue that claims be construed “one way in order to maintain their
`
`patentability and in a different way against accused infringers.” Aylus Networks, 856 F.3d at
`
`1360; see also Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`The Court should hold IGT to its prior representations regarding what a “software authorization
`
`agent” is and adopt Zynga’s proposed construction, which tracks those representations exactly
`
`and accords with what the specification itself requires.
`
`2.
`
`“gaming software”
`
`Term in dispute
`
`“gaming software”
`
`Zynga’s Proposed
`Construction
`“instructions that are executed to
`run a game or a component of a
`game, as distinct from data”
`
`IGT’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary
`(plain and ordinary meaning)
`
`
`
`The parties dispute whether the term “gaming software” in claims 28 and 84 requires at
`
`least part of an executable program, or whether the term can extend to mere data that cannot be
`
`executed. Zynga’s proposal, and the intrinsic evidence, are consistent with how the term
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 14 of 42
`
`“software” is typically understood. “Software” refers specifically to “[c]omputer programs,” or
`
`“instructions that make hardware work,” and not just generic information or data. Ex. 9,
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 489 (5th Ed. 2002) (emphasis added); see also Ex. 8,
`
`Declaration of Michael Goodrich (“Goodrich Decl.”), ¶¶ 23-24.
`
`The ’089 patent repeatedly and consistently explains that “gaming software” is something
`
`that “may be executed on a gaming machine to play a gam[e].” Ex. 2, ’089 patent, 25:38-39
`
`(emphasis added); see also id., 25:34-37 (“gaming software” may be “operat[ed]”); 25:42-48
`
`(“gaming software” is “needed to play” or “execute[]” “a game”). Moreover, gaming software,
`
`according to the patent, has “source code” that may be “programmed.” Id., 4:1-24 (referencing
`
`the “source code” of “gaming software”); 24:56-58 (explaining that “gaming software” may be
`
`“programmed into an EEPROM and installed on a gaming machine”). A person of ordinary skill
`
`would understand the specification’s description of the “software” as something that is
`
`“programmed” and “executed” and made up of “source code” to be a clear teaching that “gaming
`
`software” refers to the set of instructions that make up a computer program. See Ex. 8, Goodrich
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 25-29. The patent also provides numerous examples of different types of “gaming
`
`software.” Ex. 2, 25:45-26:27. In all cases, this “gaming software” constitutes executable
`
`instructions. It is never mere data or information. See id.; see also Ex. 8, Goodrich Decl., ¶¶ 26-
`
`29.
`
`The distinction between executable software and data is also reflected in the fact that
`
`the ’089 patent repeatedly distinguishes “gaming software” from “gaming information” or
`
`“gaming data.” See, e.g., Ex. 2, Abstract, 4:34-37, 17:32-38; 18:1-10; 27:4-10; 27:31-36; 27:55-
`
`59. IGT also distinguished “gaming software” from “information” and “data” in a 2013
`
`interference relating to the ’089 patent. More particularly, according to IGT, there is a difference
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 15 of 42
`
`between “information generated or exchanged during play of a gaming machine,” and “the
`
`underlying gaming software.” Ex. 10, IGT Substantive Mot. 1, Pat. Interf. No. 105,747 (RES),
`
`1. Thus, the purposeful choice of words in the ’089 patent’s claims—i.e., the use of “gaming
`
`software” instead of “gaming information” or “gaming data”—must be given effect. See
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 807 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when “the specification …
`
`suggests that the patentees knew how to” use particular term, use of different term in the claims
`
`must have meaning).
`
`Finally, in the interference IGT proposed that “gaming software” be construed to mean
`
`“one or more software components executed on a gaming machine to play a game.” Ex. 10, 4.
`
`IGT’s prior proposal fully supports Zynga’s position that “gaming software” requires
`
`“execut[able]” components that allow for game “play,” and not mere data. See Aylus Networks,
`
`856 F.3d at 1360 (holding that post-issuance statements to the PTO have a bearing on claim
`
`scope).
`
`3.
`
`“gaming machine”
`
`Term in dispute
`
`“gaming machine”
`
`Zynga’s Proposed
`Construction
`“a special purpose machine like
`a slot machine, not a general
`purpose computer”
`
`IGT’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary
`(plain and ordinary meaning)
`
`The parties dispute whether the term “gaming machine” requires a special purpose
`
`machine for gaming, or whether it extends to general-purpose computers.
`
`Here, claims 28 and 84 use both the phrases “gaming device” and “gaming machine.”
`
`“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.” See Applied
`
`Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In other
`
`words, “gaming machine” must mean something different from “gaming device.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 16 of 42
`
`The specification of the ’089 patent makes clear that “gaming machine” in the context of
`
`the patent refers to a special-purpose machine for playing games—like the slot machines or
`
`video poker machines found in casinos. In particular, the patent explains that “gaming
`
`machines” are machines like “slot machines and video poker machines” intended for use in a
`
`“casino” or “store.” Ex. 2, 1:16-29; 2:33-36. The specification also explains that the “gaming
`
`machine” has the kind of “associated devices” found in casinos, such as “lights, ticket printers,
`
`card readers, speakers, bill validators, ticket readers, coin acceptors, display panels, key pads,
`
`coin hoppers and button pads.” Id., 1:21-29. And the patent provides an illustrated drawing of a
`
`“gaming machine” with a top box and many of these other associated devices:
`
`Id., Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`The patent also states that “a video gaming machine … of the present invention” is one
`
`that is designed to allow for the play of “mechanical” and “video slot games,” “video poker,”
`
`“video black jack” and other casino games. Id., 12:28-51. Moreover, as both the ’089 patent and
`
`IGT admit, at the time the ’089 patent was filed these types of games were all highly regulated.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 25 Filed 10/20/21 Page 17 of 42
`
`Id., 4:9-14 (explaining that “gaming software” for “gaming machine[s]” is “usually very highly
`
`regulated”); 24:51-56 (“In the gaming industry, gaming software that is used to play a game of
`
`chance on a gaming machine is typically highly regulated to ensure fair play and prevent
`
`cheating”); see also Ex. 7, 2 (“[T]he IGT patent teaches methods and systems that allow gaming
`
`software to be downloaded electronically from one device to another in a manner that permits
`
`compliance with regulations governing the highly regulated gaming industry.”). Because some
`
`of these games (such a “mechanical slot games”) can only be played on special purpose devices,
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the patent to be referring to special
`
`purpose gaming machines—not a general purpose computer.
`
`This is especially true because the patent repeatedly distinguishes between “gaming
`
`machines” and other devices involved in the gaming environment. For instance, the
`
`specification explains that:
`
`A remote server may also provide performance reports or other services for the
`gaming machine 336. For instance, the gaming machine 336 may send a report
`request message to the remote server 124 requesting a performance report for the
`gaming machine over some prior time period. After remote server generates the
`report, it may be sent back to the gaming machine 336 or some other access
`point for display. For instance, the report may be displayed on a display screen
`of the gaming machine 336, a computer 316 located in the store 140 or on a
`portable network access point 134 located outside of the store.
`
`Id., 2:11-21. In this passage, the specification distinguishes between a “gaming machine”
`
`and various “general purpose” computers involved in the gaming process – including “a remote
`
`server” which provides services to the “gaming machine” and “a computer” or “portable network
`
`access point” which displays information about the machine. Obviously, “gaming machine
`
`336,”