Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 44
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`IGT and IGT CANADA SOLUTIONS ULC,
`
`v.
`
`Zynga Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`NO. 6:21-CV-00331-ADA
`
`
`
`ZYNGA’S ANSWER TO IGT’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits
`
`this Answer to the Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs IGT and IGT
`
`Canada Solutions ULC (collectively, “IGT”). To the extent not expressly admitted below, Zynga
`
`denies each and every allegation of the Complaint.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Zynga admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for infringement
`
`of United States Patent Nos. 8,708,791; 9,159,189; 7,168,089; 7,303,473; 8,795,064; and
`
`8,266,212 under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and §§ 281-285. Zynga denies that it infringes any of the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 2, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`3.
`
`Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 3, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`4.
`
`Admitted.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 44
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Zynga admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action arising under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Zynga denies that it
`
`infringes any of the patents-in-suit.
`
`6.
`
`For purposes of this action only, Zynga admits that this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`For purposes of this action only, Zynga admits that it is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this District. Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`For purposes of this action only, Zynga admits that venue is proper in this judicial
`
`district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) but denies that the Waco Division is the most convenient
`
`forum for this case. Zynga admits that it has a regular and established place of business in
`
`Austin, Texas but denies that it has committed infringing acts in this District or elsewhere.
`
`Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 8.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 9, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`10.
`
`Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 10, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`11.
`
`Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 11, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`12.
`
`Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 12, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 44
`
`13.
`
`Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 13, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`14.
`
`Zynga admits that https://www.zynga.com/ states that “Zynga is a leading
`
`developer of the world’s most popular social games that are played by millions of people around
`
`the world each day.” Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 14, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations. Zynga denies the allegations in the third sentence of paragraph 14.
`
`15.
`
`In response to the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that Exhibit A to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’791 patent which reflects that it is
`
`entitled “Detecting and preventing bots and cheating in online gaming.” In response to the
`
`allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the face of the ’791
`
`patent states that it issued on April 29, 2014 and Zynga lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this sentence, which are
`
`therefore denied. In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga
`
`admits that the face of the ’791 patent states that it was filed on December 20, 2012 and is a
`
`divisional of application No. 11/480,713 which, purportedly, was filed on July 3, 2006. Zynga
`
`denies the allegations in the fourth and fifth sentences of this paragraph. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 15.
`
`16.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. In response to
`
`the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent states
`
`that “it would be very desirable to develop new methods for detecting and preventing cheating in
`
`wagering games conducted via the Internet.” In response to the allegations in the third sentence
`
`of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent states that “[o]ne barrier to the further
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 44
`
`acceptance of online gaming by the United States government (and other governments) is the
`
`perception that online gaming very often involves cheating.” In response to the allegations in the
`
`fourth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent states that “[t]hese bots can
`
`apply perfect or nearly perfect strategies during game play” and “[o]ther types of cheating
`
`involve unfair collaboration between players.” Zynga denies the allegations in the fifth sentence
`
`of this paragraph. In response to the allegations in the sixth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga
`
`admits that the ’791 patent states that “[a] bot and remote control software may be running on a
`
`second PC, whereby the games played on the first PC are being controlled by the bot on the
`
`second PC. In this way, a human will appear to be participating in the online gaming sessions
`
`and could even interact with other players or provide other human responses that would be
`
`difficult to automate.” Zynga denies the allegations in the seventh sentence of this paragraph.
`
`Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of this paragraph.
`
`Zynga denies that the third sentence of this paragraph is an accurate recitation of claim 1 of the
`
`’791 patent as the word “device” is misspelled. In response to the allegations in the fourth
`
`sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that claim 1 states “gaming method in a gaming system
`
`having a plurality of host devices and at least one game server” and “providing, by the plurality
`
`of host devices and the at least one game server, an online wagering game.” In response to the
`
`allegations in the fifth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that claim 1 states “presenting,
`
`by plurality of host devices, game data required for participation in the online wagering game in
`
`a format that requires a human interface or the use of pattern recognition methods” and
`
`“gathering, by the plurality of host devices, game play data while players are using the plurality
`
`of host devices to play Internet wagering games.” In response to the allegations in the sixth
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 5 of 44
`
`sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that claim 1 states “analyzing, by the at least one game
`
`server, the game play data to determine individual players' typical gaming styles and times of
`
`deviation from the typical gaming styles” and “comparing, by the at least one game server, times
`
`of deviation from players' typical gaming styles to determine instances of probable collusion
`
`between players.” Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. In response to
`
`the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent
`
`discloses that a “game provider 105 provides Internet wagering games via one or more servers
`
`110, 115, 120 and 125.” In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph,
`
`Zynga admits that the ’791 patent discloses that “[a]fter a player's eligibility is determined,
`
`gaming software is provided (step 407), e.g., by downloading the software from a server of game
`
`provider 105 to a player's host device in an uncontrolled environment.” In response to the
`
`allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent discloses
`
`that “[f]or example, some implementations of the present invention provide gaming information
`
`in formats that are difficult for a bot to interpret, but which preferably are easy for humans to
`
`interpret.” In response to the allegations in the fifth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that the ‘791 patent discloses that “[i]n some implementations of the invention, the entire playing
`
`card (or hand of playing cards) may be displayed as if it were rotated and/or distorted in some
`
`fashion” and that “[i]n some such implementations of the invention, a GUI will be changed more
`
`frequently as a countermeasure in response to, e.g., a suspected bot.” Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 6 of 44
`
`19.
`
`In response to the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that the ’791 patent discloses that “players' gaming data are collected and analyzed. Some
`
`implementations of the invention involve the tracking and analysis of gaming data that includes,
`
`but is not limited to, the following: response time, win frequency, win amount, time spent
`
`playing, game play decisions and wagering decisions. A player's responses and other gaming
`
`data are preferably tracked over a period of time.” In response to the allegations in the second
`
`sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent discloses that “some
`
`implementations of the invention involve calculating a player's characteristic percentage of
`
`optimal decision-making, a player's characteristic range of deviation from this characteristic
`
`percentage, a player's characteristic range of deviation from perfect game play, or similar
`
`values.” In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that
`
`the ’791 patent discloses that “[i]f a player is suddenly playing at a level quite different from his
`
`or her historical range, this indicates that something is awry.” In response to the allegations in
`
`the fourth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent states “[f]or example,
`
`consistently perfect or nearly-perfect game play suggests that a player is actually a bot (or is
`
`using a bot or similar software).” In response to the allegations in the fifth sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent states that “if the player also has a consistently
`
`small response time and can play for long time periods without making an error, the player is
`
`even more likely to be a bot.” In response to the allegations in the sixth sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent discloses that an example of indicia of collusion is
`
`when “more than one of the players has been in the same location during times that the player is
`
`winning.” Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`19.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 7 of 44
`
`20.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 20. In response to
`
`the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791 patent states
`
`that “[i]f no indicia of cheating have been detected, play may continue as before (step 415).” In
`
`response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’791
`
`patent states that “if an indicium of cheating has been detected, cheating countermeasures are
`
`invoked (step 435).” In response to the allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph,
`
`Zynga admits that the ’791 patent discloses that “if there are preliminary indications of bot use, a
`
`display may be used that is believed to be more difficult for bots to interpret, the display type
`
`may be changed more frequently” and “if there is a very high probability that cheating has
`
`occurred and is ongoing, a player may be prevented from further play, assessed a monetary
`
`penalty, etc.” and that “[f]or example, a player may be required to respond correctly to a spoken
`
`question or command.” Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of this paragraph.
`
`In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that claim 11
`
`recites “wherein wagering data for participation in the online wagering game are provided as
`
`images of wager tokens.” In response to the allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph,
`
`Zynga admits that claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites “[t]he gaming method of claim 1,
`
`further comprising: determining, by the at least one game server, locations of at least some of the
`
`plurality of host devices; and determining, by the at least one game server, whether at least some
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 8 of 44
`
`of the instances of probable collusion involve multiple host devices at one location.” Except as
`expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`In response to the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that Exhibit B to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’189 patent which reflects that it is
`
`entitled “Mobile gaming device carrying out uninterrupted game despite communications link
`
`disruption.” In response to the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Zynga
`
`further admits that the face of the ’189 patent states that it issued on October 13, 2015 and Zynga
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph, which are therefore denied. In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that the face of the ’189 patent states that it was filed on April 11, 2013,
`
`is a continuation-in-part of two different applications, and is related to provisional application
`
`No. 61/586,547, which, purportedly, was filed on January 13, 2012. Zynga denies the
`
`allegations in the fourth and fifth sentences of this paragraph. Except as expressly admitted,
`
`Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 24.
`
`25.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. Zynga lacks
`
`sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the
`
`second sentence of this paragraph, which are therefore denied. Zynga denies the allegations in
`
`the third sentence of this paragraph. In response to the allegations in the fourth sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’189 patent states that “[s]ince the player may walk around the
`
`casino with the tablet and be distracted, various issues arise. Some of these issues include actions
`
`to be taken in the event the communications link is broken during a game and actions to be taken
`
`if a maximum time between games is exceeded.” The allegations in the fifth sentence of this
`
`paragraph are vague and ambiguous with respect to “prior art” and, therefore, Zynga denies those
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 9 of 44
`
`allegations. In response to the allegations in the sixth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that the ’189 patent states that “what is needed is an improved technique for dealing with a
`
`communications link being broken in the middle of a game.” Zynga denies the allegations in the
`
`seventh sentence of this paragraph. In response to the allegations in the eighth sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’189 patent discloses that “[i]f the communications link is
`
`broken during a game, rather than terminating the game and stopping the display of the game as
`
`is performed by the prior art, the tablet displays the continuing spinning of the reels.” Except as
`
`expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of this paragraph.
`
`In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that IGT has
`
`accurately recited claim 1 of the ’189 patent. In response to the allegations in the fourth sentence
`
`of this paragraph, Zynga admits that claim 1 of the ’189 patent recites “extending the game
`
`animation for the game by the mobile gaming device during the communications link failure
`
`beyond a typical time for the game until the communications link has been re-established.”
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the fifth sentence of this paragraph. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of this
`
`paragraph. In response to the allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that the ’189 patent states that “[d]uring all steps, the gaming machine continually senses
`
`whether the communications link is still up by, for example, receiving periodic signals from the
`
`tablet or receiving acknowledgements from the tablet that a command has been received.” In
`
`response to the allegations in the fifth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’189
`
`patent states that “[t]he communications link may be broken by the player moving out of the
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 10 of 44
`
`allowable range, interference, or other cause.” The allegations in the sixth sentence of this
`
`paragraph are vague and ambiguous with respect to “specialized programming” and Zynga,
`
`therefore, denies those allegations. In response to the allegations in the seventh sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’189 patent states that “the gaming machine re-transmits the
`
`final outcome and award and, assuming the player has re-entered the allowable range within the
`
`allowable “reconnect timeout” period (step 110), the tablet receives the final result and stops the
`
`reels at their final positions (step 102).” In response to the allegations in the eighth sentence of
`
`this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’189 patent states that “the player perceives the continuous
`
`spinning of the reels as just an extended game rather than an interruption in the game.” Except
`
`as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`In response to the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that Exhibit C to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’089 patent which reflects that it is
`
`entitled “Secured virtual network in a gaming environment.” In response to the allegations in the
`
`second sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the face of the ’089 patent states that it
`
`issued on January 23, 2007 and Zynga lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about remaining allegations, which are therefore denied. In response to the allegations in the
`
`third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the face of the ’089 patent states that it was
`
`filed on April 3, 2002 and is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/732,650, which,
`
`according to the face of the ’089 patent, was filed on December 7, 2000. Zynga denies the
`
`allegations in the fourth and fifth sentences of this paragraph. Except as expressly admitted,
`
`Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 30.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 11 of 44
`
`31.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of this
`
`paragraph. The allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph are vague and ambiguous
`
`with respect to “brick-and-mortar gaming establishments” and, therefore, Zynga denies those
`
`allegations. In response to the allegations in the fifth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that the ’089 patent states that “[a]s technology in the gaming industry progresses, more and
`
`more gaming services are being provided to gaming machines via communication networks that
`
`link groups of gaming machines to a remote computer that provides one or more gaming
`
`services.” Zynga denies the allegations in the sixth sentence of this paragraph. In response to
`
`the allegations in the seventh and eighth sentences of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089
`
`patent states “gaming machines under the control of a particular entity may be globally
`
`distributed in many different types of establishments. Casinos, convenience stores, supermarkets,
`
`bars and boats are a few examples of establishments where gaming machines may be placed.” In
`
`response to the allegations in the ninth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089
`
`patent states that the gaming machines may be connected to “one or more database servers via
`
`one or more dedicated networks.” In response to the allegations in the tenth sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089 patent states that “the cost of a dedicated communication
`
`network for a small number of gaming machines is usually not justified.” In response to the
`
`allegations in the eleventh sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089 patent states
`
`that “[t]hus, the gaming machines operate in a “stand alone” mode. While operating in “stand
`
`alone” mode, network gaming services are not available to these gaming machines.” Except as
`
`expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 31.
`
`32.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of this paragraph.
`
`In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 12 of 44
`
`patent states that “[t]he capability to electronically download gaming software is desirable
`
`because it may enable gaming machines to be quickly reconfigured to account for changes in
`
`popularity of various games played on the gaming machines and it may simplify software
`
`maintenance issues on the gaming machine such as gaming software updates.” Zynga lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in the
`
`fourth sentence of this paragraph, and therefore denies those allegations. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. Zynga denies
`
`the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph in part because the recitation of claim 84
`
`contains an error in the following limitation: “a device driver for a for a device installed on a
`
`gaming machine.” In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga
`
`admits that claim 84 recites “a method of transferring gaming software to a second gaming
`
`device,” “receiving a gaming software transaction request from the second gaming device” and
`
`“sending the gaming software transaction request to a gaming software authorization agent that
`
`approves or rejects the transfer of gaming software.” In response to the allegations in the fourth
`
`sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that claim 84 recites “receiving an authorization
`
`message from the gaming software authorization agent wherein the authorization message
`
`includes information indicating whether the first gaming device is authorized to transfer the
`
`gaming software to the second gamma device” and “transferring the gaming software to the
`
`second gaming device.” In response to the allegations of the fifth sentence of this paragraph,
`
`Zynga admits that claim 84 recites “wherein the gaming software is for at least one of a) a game
`
`of chance played on a gaming machine, b) a bonus game of chance played on a gaming machine,
`
`c) a device driver for a for a device installed on a gaming machine, d) a player tracking service
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 13 of 44
`
`on a gaming machine and e) an operating system installed on a gaming machine.” Except as
`
`expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of this
`
`paragraph. In response to the allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that the ’089 patent states that “FIG. 8 is a block diagram of gaming software distribution
`
`network that uses a secure virtual network.” Zynga denies the allegations in the fifth sentence of
`
`this paragraph. With respect to the allegations in the sixth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga
`
`admits that the ’089 patent states that “[i]n general, the gaming software authorization agent 50
`
`approves all gaming software transactions between two gaming devices in the gaming software
`
`distribution network and stores a record of the gaming software transactions.” In response to the
`
`allegations in the seventh sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089 patent states
`
`“[w]hen the identity of the requestor is authenticated, in 1012, the agent may evaluate and
`
`validate one or more parts of a download request for gaming software from the requestor.” In
`
`response to the allegations in the eighth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089
`
`patent states that “[f]or instance, the agent may determine if a requested gaming software title
`
`has been approved for downloads or transfers.” In response to the allegations in the ninth
`
`sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089 patent states that “[a]s another example,
`
`the download request may include identification information for a gaming device that will
`
`receive the requested gaming software.” In response to the allegations in the tenth sentence of
`
`this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089 patent states that “[t]he agent may compare
`
`identification information for the destination gaming device with identification information from
`
`a database of gaming devices approved for receiving gaming software.” In response to the
`
`allegations in the eleventh sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that the ’089 patent states
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 14 of 44
`
`that “when information in the download request has been validated, the agent may generate an
`
`authorization record for the gaming software transaction as previously described with respect to
`
`FIG. 9” and “when the information in the download request is not valid, the agent may generate
`
`an error message and it to the requester.” Zynga denies the allegations in the twelfth sentence of
`
`this paragraph. Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Zynga denies the allegation in the first sentence of this paragraph of this
`
`paragraph. Zynga lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the
`
`allegations in the second, third, and fourth sentences of this paragraph, which are therefore
`
`denied. Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of this
`
`paragraph. In response to the allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that claim 89 recites “[t]he method of claim 84, wherein the gaming software transaction request
`
`comprises access information and gaming software identification information.” Zynga denies
`
`the allegations in the fifth sentence of this paragraph. Except as expressly admitted, Zynga
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`In response to the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits
`
`that Exhibit D to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’473 patent which reflects that it is
`
`entitled “Network gaming system.” In response to the allegations in the second sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga further admits that the face of the ’473 patent states that it was filed on
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 15 of 44
`
`February 25, 2002 and issued on December 4, 2007, and Zynga lacks sufficient knowledge or
`
`information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this sentence, which
`
`are therefore denied. Zynga denies the allegations in the third and fourth sentences of this
`
`paragraph. Except as expressly admitted, Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of this paragraph.
`
`Zynga lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`in the third sentence of this paragraph, which are therefore denied. In response to the allegations
`
`in the fourth sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that systems for presenting information
`
`services over a network, such as games played interactively over the Internet, were known in the
`
`prior art. Zynga lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`allegations in the fifth sentence of this paragraph, which are therefore denied. Zynga denies the
`
`allegations in the sixth and seventh sentences of this paragraph. Except as expressly admitted,
`
`Zynga denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 41.
`
`42.
`
`Zynga denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of this paragraph.
`
`In response to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Zynga admits that IGT has
`
`accurately recited claim 22 of the ’473 patent in this paragraph. Zynga denies the allegations in
`
`the fourth sentence of this paragraph. In response to the allegations in the fifth sentence of this
`
`paragraph, Zynga admits that claim 22 recites “A website controller that controls operation of a
`
`website, said controller comprising: a processor; a memory operatively coupled to said
`
`processor; a first computer program portion stored in said memory that causes data prompting a
`
`game selection to be made to be transmitted to a remote player device to allow a first game or a
`
`second game to be selected via said remote player device; a second computer program portion
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 72 Filed 05/10/22 Page 16 of 44
`
`stored in said memory that causes game selection data representing a game selection that is
`
`received from said remote player device to be stored in memory; a third computer program
`
`portion stored in said memory that determines whether said data representing said game selection
`
`corresponds to said first game or said second game; a fourth computer program portion stored in
`
`said memory that determines whether to select a first gaming computer or a second gaming
`
`computer based on said game selection received from said remote player device; a fifth computer
`
`program portion stored in said memory that facilitates data communication between said remote
`
`player device and said first gaming computer that facilitates play of said first game if said game
`
`selection data specifies said first game; and a sixth computer program portion stored in said
`
`memory that facilitates data communication between said remote player device and said second
`
`gaming computer that facilitates play of said second game if said game selection data specifies
`
`said second game.” Except as express