Aristocrat Tech v. Intl Game Technology

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited (Australia) and Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. (Nevada)
  • Defendant: International Game Technology and IGT (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDermott Will & Emery LLP
• Case Identification: 5:06-cv-03717, N.D. Cal., 06/12/2006
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's business activities and acts of patent infringement committed within the Northern District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic gaming machines, including the "Fort Knox" mystery progressive slot machine, infringe a patent related to methods for triggering a feature game to award a progressive jackpot.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networked electronic slot machines and systems for awarding large, accumulating ("progressive") jackpots in a way that links a player's chance of winning to the size of their wager.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on June 12, 2006, just six days after the patent-in-suit was issued by the USPTO on June 6, 2006. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing negotiations between the parties, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1997-07-08	'215 Patent Priority Date
2006-06-06	'215 Patent Issue Date
2006-06-12	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,056,215 - "Slot machine game and system with improved jackpot feature," issued June 6, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses perceived limitations in prior art progressive jackpot systems. A key problem noted is that in some systems, players betting the minimum amount have the same chance of winning a feature jackpot as those betting the maximum, creating a "scale of diminishing returns" that discourages larger wagers (’215 Patent, col. 2:3-16). The patent also notes that players can become "bored" with traditional jackpot triggers tied to rare symbol combinations, which are often perceived as "unwinnable" (’215 Patent, col. 1:52-57, col. 2:23-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where the probability of triggering a special "feature game"—the sole path to winning the jackpot—is directly proportional to the amount a player wagers. The system achieves this by selecting a random "trigger value" from a large, predetermined range of numbers for each game played (’215 Patent, col. 6:12-15). Concurrently, the player is "allotted" a set of numbers from that same range, with the size of the set corresponding to the number of credits bet (e.g., a 20-credit bet allots the player numbers 1-20) (’215 Patent, col. 6:66-68). If the system's random trigger value falls within the player's allotted set of numbers, the feature game is initiated (’215 Patent, col. 6:22-27; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This design directly incentivizes larger wagers by proportionally increasing the chance of entering the feature game, while giving casino operators a flexible mechanism to control jackpot frequency independent of the base game's design (’215 Patent, col. 5:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶15). The first independent claim, Claim 1, is a method claim with the following essential elements:

• In a network of gaming machines, making a wager and initiating a "first main game."
• Causing a "second game trigger condition" to occur randomly, with its probability being "dependent on the amount of the wager."
• This trigger condition includes the steps of:
  • (1) selecting a random number from a predetermined range;
  • (2) "allotting a plurality of numbers" from that range in proportion to the wager; and
  • (3) indicating a trigger if the selected random number matches one of the allotted numbers.
• Upon a trigger, a "second game" appears after the main game is complete.
• This second game is used to "randomly select" one prize from a "plurality of progressive prizes."
• The system then displays the second game, allows player interaction, and awards the selected prize.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses Defendant's "electronic gaming machines," and specifically identifies the "IGT-branded mystery progressive slot machine Fort Knox™" (Compl. ¶13, 15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides minimal detail regarding the technical operation of the accused Fort Knox machine. It is identified as a "mystery progressive slot machine," a term often used in the industry for jackpots awarded through a mechanism other than a specific combination of symbols on the main game's reels (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells these machines in the United States, but offers no specific allegations about the Fort Knox product's market position or commercial significance (Compl. ¶5).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. It makes a general assertion that the accused products are "covered by one or more claims of the '215 Patent" (Compl. ¶15). The implied infringement theory is that the "Fort Knox" machine's "mystery progressive" functionality operates according to the method of the patent. Given the lack of specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements, a formal claim chart cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be factual and evidentiary: does the accused Fort Knox system's software architecture actually implement the specific triggering mechanism required by Claim 1? The complaint provides no direct evidence that the accused product performs the claimed steps of selecting a random number, "allotting" a proportional block of numbers to a player's wager, and comparing the two to determine if a feature game is triggered (’215 Patent, col. 9:1-8). This will likely be a primary focus of discovery.
  • Technical Question: It raises the question of whether the accused "mystery" trigger functions in a materially different way. For example, the accused system could potentially use a different probabilistic model (e.g., a simple weighted chance per credit bet) that achieves a similar outcome—a wager-proportional trigger probability—without literally performing the "allotting" and "matching" steps recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "allotting a plurality of numbers from the predetermined range of numbers in proportion to the amount of the wager" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core inventive mechanism for linking wager size to jackpot probability. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether this term is construed to require a specific algorithmic implementation or if it can cover any method that produces a proportionally-scaled probability. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a specific data-handling process, which could be a point of differentiation for the accused product.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the invention more generally as an event "having a probability related to credits bet per game on the console," which could support an argument that "allotting" should be read functionally to cover any method achieving this result (’215 Patent, col. 2:39-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a concrete example: "A bet of 20 credits will result in the numbers between 1 and 20 (inclusive) being allotted to the game," suggesting a literal assignment of a block of numbers for comparison, which could support a narrower, more structural interpretation (’215 Patent, col. 6:66-68).

• The Term: "randomly selecting said one progressive prize from said plurality of progressive prizes" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires that after the feature game is triggered, a second random selection process occurs within that game to determine which of several available progressive prizes is awarded. This could be a critical point if the accused system, for example, determines which prize is being played for before the feature game is triggered, or if it only offers a single progressive prize.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment with four distinct prize tiers (Grand, Major, Minor, Mini), which aligns with the "plurality of progressive prizes" language (’215 Patent, col. 7:60-65). This supports an interpretation that covers multi-level jackpot systems.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires this selection to occur as part of the "second game" itself. A defendant might argue its system does not perform this step if, for instance, the prize level is determined by the triggering event rather than by a subsequent gameplay sequence. The patent's description of a feature game where a player's score determines the prize level appears to support the claimed sequence (’215 Patent, col. 8:52-59).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of inducement and contributory infringement without pleading specific supporting facts, such as references to marketing materials or user manuals that instruct on infringing use (Compl. ¶15, 18).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendant "had knowledge of and willfully, deliberately, and intentionally infringed" (’215 Patent, ¶18). The complaint does not specify whether this knowledge is alleged to be pre- or post-suit. Given the patent's issuance only six days prior to the lawsuit, a pre-suit knowledge allegation would suggest Defendant was aware of the pending patent application.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. Evidentiary Proof: A primary question will be whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused "Fort Knox" machine's software operates using the specific method of selecting a random number and comparing it against a wager-proportional "allotted" set of numbers, as recited in the patent's claims. The absence of such direct evidence could present a significant hurdle for the plaintiff.
2. Algorithmic Scope: The case may turn on a key question of claim construction: can the term "allotting a plurality of numbers" be interpreted broadly to cover any algorithm that makes a jackpot feature's trigger probability proportional to the wager, or is it limited to the specific implementation of assigning and matching numbers as described in the patent's embodiments?