DCT
5:21-cv-02436
Skillz Platform Inc v. Aviagames Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Skillz Platform Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: AviaGames Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
- Case Identification: 5:21-cv-02436, N.D. Cal., 06/21/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant AviaGames has a regular and established place of business in Mountain View, California, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile gaming platform and associated games infringe a patent related to technology that ensures fair, skill-based competition by standardizing random elements across different gameplay instances within the same tournament.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of creating a level playing field in competitive eSports games, like digital Solitaire or Bingo, where outcomes can be influenced by random events such as the deal of a card deck.
- Key Procedural History: This Amended Complaint was filed after the initial complaint on April 5, 2021. The filing notes that discovery has occurred, including depositions, and references a Court Claim Construction Order (ECF No. 117) that allegedly rejected Defendant's attempt to narrow the scope of the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,649,564 Priority Date |
| 2016-01-01 | AviaGames allegedly became a Skillz developer-customer |
| 2017-05-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,649,564 Issued |
| 2021-04-05 | Original Complaint filed |
| 2021-12-17 | Skillz's Amended Infringement Contentions served |
| 2023-06-21 | Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,649,564 - “Peer-to-peer wagering platform”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,649,564, “Peer-to-peer wagering platform,” issued May 16, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of conducting fair, skill-based competitions in online games that incorporate random elements. In such games, players may face different scenarios (e.g., a different deal of cards in Solitaire), making it difficult to determine whether outcomes are based on skill or luck (Compl. ¶¶ 59-60; ’9564 Patent, col. 1:33-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a client device, enrolled in an online competition, receives a stream of pseudo-random number seeds that is characterized by a unique identifier for that specific competition. This allows each competitor's device to independently generate an identical sequence of random numbers, ensuring that key random elements of the game are the same for everyone in that match. This creates a "common gameplay experience" that levels the playing field (Compl. ¶ 61; ’9564 Patent, col. 15:53-62).
- Technical Importance: This technology was designed to enable and legitimize the burgeoning mobile eSports industry by making it possible to conduct verifiably fair, skill-based tournaments for real prizes, even for games with inherent randomness (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 66).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- Receiving, at a client, a stream of pseudo-random number seeds characterized by a unique match identifier for an online competition.
- Receiving, at the client and from a game server, game data to execute the game instance.
- Generating, from the seed stream, a plurality of pseudo-random numbers.
- Executing the game instance using those pseudo-random numbers to provide an online competition where "a beginning of gameplay experience is common" between different clients in the same competition.
- The process is implemented by at least one data processor.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims ('564 Patent, col. 16:1-23; Compl. ¶ 64).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "Pocket7Games application and standalone game applications, including applications titled 'Bingo Clash', 'Solitaire Clash', '21 Gold', 'Explodocube', and 'Tile Blitz', and associated backend servers and systems" (Compl. ¶ 64).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are mobile applications that allow users to compete against each other in various games of skill for cash prizes (Compl. ¶ 68, 21). The complaint alleges that to ensure fairness, the accused system provides players in the same match with an identical game setup, such as the same starting hand and deck in Solitaire (Compl. ¶ 66, 1(e)). A screenshot of a social media post from Defendant, included in the complaint, states, "Players are always playing the same hand in the same match" (Compl. p. 19). The complaint alleges these are among the primary products offered by AviaGames in the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 69-70).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, at a client including an executable game instance, a stream of pseudo random number seeds characterized by a unique match identifier for an online digital gaming competition... | The accused applications, running on an iOS client, allegedly receive a stream of pseudo-random number seeds that is characterized by a unique identifier for the specific competition the client is enrolled in, such as a game of Solitaire (Compl. p. 16). | ¶66, 1(b) | col. 15:53-62 |
| receiving, at the client and from a game server, game data for executing the game instance, the game instance requiring one or more random numbers to complete execution of the game instance | The accused applications allegedly require receiving game data from a game server for execution. A screenshot is provided showing an error message, "The Internet connection appears to be offline," which is alleged to demonstrate the necessity of a server connection to play (Compl. p. 18). | ¶66, 1(c) | col. 13:32-40 |
| generating, using the stream of pseudo-random number seeds, a plurality of pseudo-random numbers | The complaint alleges that the received stream of seeds is used to generate a plurality of pseudo-random numbers, which are then used to determine game elements and properties like the starting hand and deck in Solitaire. | ¶66, 1(d) | col. 15:53-56 |
| executing the game instance by the client and using the plurality of pseudo-random numbers to provide the online competition... such that a beginning of gameplay experience is common between the game instance and a second game instance... | The iOS client allegedly executes the game instances using the generated pseudo-random numbers. This results in a common "beginning of gameplay experience," such as the same starting hand and deck in Solitaire, for all players in a given match (Compl. p. 19). | ¶66, 1(e) | col. 14:51-60 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the accused products use a "stream of pseudo random number seeds" to create a common game state, as claimed, or if they use an alternative technical method. For instance, the system could transmit a fully pre-generated game board or card layout rather than the seeds used to generate it. The complaint's evidence, including a Facebook post, confirms the outcome (a common game state) but does not provide direct evidence of the specific underlying mechanism.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the definition of "a beginning of gameplay experience." The complaint alleges that a common starting hand in Solitaire satisfies this limitation. A potential dispute is whether this phrase requires more extensive commonality throughout the game instance for infringement to be found.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a stream of pseudo random number seeds"
- Context and Importance: This term is technically precise and central to the infringement analysis. The case may depend on whether AviaGames's platform transmits "seeds" for the client to process, or if it transmits the final random numbers or game state itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because a finding that the accused system does not transmit "seeds" in a "stream" could be a basis for a non-infringement defense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall goal is to "standardize (or level the playing field) for a game of skill that still has random elements" ('564 Patent, col. 14:56-58). A court could find that any mechanism that transmits data from a server to achieve this standardized random state falls within the spirit of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim specifically recites "seeds" (plural) in a "stream." This language could be interpreted to require a sequence of seeds transmitted over time, not just a single seed or a data packet describing an initial game state. The specification's description of using a "tournament identification number as a seed to generate pseudo-random numbers" supports this narrower focus on the seed itself ('564 Patent, col. 15:53-56).
The Term: "a beginning of gameplay experience"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines how much of the game must be identical for infringement. The plaintiff's theory hinges on this being met by an identical initial setup (e.g., a card deal).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the indefinite article "a" suggests that any non-trivial "beginning" portion is sufficient. The patent’s focus is on ensuring the start of the competition is fair, which aligns with the plaintiff's interpretation that an identical initial deal suffices ('564 Patent, col. 14:51-60).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "a beginning" implies a more substantial portion of gameplay than just the initial state, especially if subsequent random events are not synchronized. The patent discusses causing "gameplay to be different between tournaments, but not between game instances in a given tournament," which could be argued to imply commonality throughout the entire instance ('564 Patent, col. 15:5-7).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- While the prayer for relief seeks judgment for both direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶ A, p. 25), the factual allegations in the body of the complaint primarily describe a theory of direct infringement, wherein AviaGames itself makes, uses, and sells the infringing system.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that AviaGames's infringement was and continues to be willful. This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge of the patent. Pre-suit knowledge is based on AviaGames's alleged history as a "developer-customer" of Skillz in 2016, giving it "intimate knowledge" of Skillz's technology (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 49). Post-suit willfulness is alleged based on AviaGames's continued infringement after the filing of the original complaint on April 5, 2021, and after receiving an adverse claim construction ruling (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 80).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: Does the AviaGames platform achieve a common gameplay experience by transmitting a "stream of pseudo random number seeds" to the client for local generation, as required by the claim, or does it employ a different, non-infringing method such as transmitting a pre-generated game state from the server?
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "a beginning of gameplay experience" be construed to read on the common initial card deal or board setup alleged by Skillz, or does the claim require a more extensive period of synchronized random events?
- Finally, a significant question regarding damages will be one of intent: Given the allegations of a prior business relationship and continued operation after the lawsuit was filed, the court will need to determine whether AviaGames's conduct constitutes willful infringement, which could expose it to treble damages.