DCT

1:24-cv-01189

Intralot Inc v. Instant Win Gaming Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01189, D.D.C., 04/23/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has offered for sale lottery games in Washington, D.C., and as a result, has a regular and established place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multi-jurisdictional lottery game infringes a patent related to systems and methods for managing a common, progressive jackpot across different jurisdictions.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the backend architecture for large-scale, "fast play" or instant-win lottery games that operate across multiple states or territories, a market segment that relies on synchronizing data to manage a single, large, shared prize pool.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patent-in-suit and its alleged infringement via "at least two cease and desist letters." This history is cited as the basis for the willful infringement allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-10-21 '214 Patent Priority Date
2019-12-03 '214 Patent Issue Date
2024-04-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,497,214 - "Multi-Jurisdictional Progressive Fast Play Lottery Games With Pool Replenishment and Associated Methods," issued December 3, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the administrative and technical challenges of operating lottery games across multiple jurisdictions (e.g., different states). It notes that when each jurisdiction has its own game instance, coordinating a shared jackpot can be inefficient, relying on "low tech" data exchange that may lead to inconsistent odds for players in different locations and confusion when a jackpot is won. (’214 Patent, col. 2:32-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized "multi-jurisdictional master controller" that communicates with the individual state servers. This master controller receives data for each ticket purchased in any jurisdiction, sequences the tickets based on their precise time of purchase, and calculates a single, common jackpot in near-real-time. It then communicates the updated jackpot amount and notifies all participating jurisdictions immediately when a winning ticket is identified, thereby resetting the jackpot for all subsequent players. (’214 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:44-57).
  • Technical Importance: This centralized, time-sequenced approach allows for the creation of cohesive, large-scale progressive jackpot games that can operate seamlessly across different legal and technical lottery systems, aiming to provide a consistent and fair player experience regardless of location. (’214 Patent, col. 3:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "several claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶24). Independent claims of the patent are 1, 7, and 13.
  • Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) includes these essential elements:
    • A system with at least one processor and memory.
    • Receiving, from a plurality of state servers, lottery data for tickets purchased in different jurisdictions.
    • Sequencing the lottery tickets based on their times of purchase across the different jurisdictions.
    • Determining, sequentially for each ticket, a common jackpot that includes a running total accumulated from a percentage of each ticket's price.
    • Monitoring each state server to determine when a winning ticket is identified.
    • Notifying each state server of an updated common jackpot amount each time a "period of time expires."
    • Notifying each state server when a winning ticket is identified, thereby resetting the common jackpot.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant's "Mega Money Jackpot" game (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Mega Money Jackpot is a lottery game offered for sale in multiple jurisdictions, including Washington D.C., Pennsylvania, and Virginia (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). The complaint references a "MEGA MONEY JACKPOT STATEMENT OF WORK ('SOW')" (attached as Exhibit 2) for a description of the accused product, but provides no further technical details on its operation within the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges IWG is a competitor to Intralot in the lottery and gaming industry (Compl. ¶3, ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the infringement theory is detailed in an attached claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 3), which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶24). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible from the available documents. The narrative infringement theory is that IWG's "Mega Money Jackpot" game, by its nature as a multi-jurisdictional lottery game, incorporates the system and methods claimed by the ’214 Patent for managing a common jackpot across different state systems (Compl. ¶11, ¶22).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question: The central dispute will likely be factual: does the architecture of the Mega Money Jackpot game include a centralized controller that performs the specific functions recited in the asserted claims? Key evidence will concern whether IWG's system sequences tickets based on purchase time across jurisdictions to determine winner priority and whether it provides regular, periodic jackpot updates to all participating state systems as claimed.
  • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that IWG's system does more than simply aggregate funds into a common pot? The claims require specific functions like sequential jackpot determination based on ticket purchase time and notifications after a "period of time expires," raising the question of whether the accused system performs these precise technical steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "sequence the lottery tickets based on their times of purchase across the different jurisdictions" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This limitation appears central to the patent's proposed solution for resolving situations where multiple players in different states appear to win the same jackpot nearly simultaneously. The definition will determine whether any form of time-stamping infringes, or if a more specific, coordinated, cross-jurisdictional sequencing process is required.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the method of sequencing, which may support an argument that any system that records purchase times and uses them to order tickets meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the master controller uses the sequence to determine which claimant "was the first in time to claim the jackpot" (’214 Patent, col. 13:64-67) and may use a "first in, first out (FIFO) algorithm" (’214 Patent, col. 15:19-20). This could support an argument that the term requires a system designed specifically to resolve winner-priority disputes, not just routine data logging.

The Term: "notify each state server of an updated common jackpot amount each time a period of time expires" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a proactive, repeated notification process. The dispute will be over what constitutes a "period of time" and whether the notification must be automatic and regular, or if on-demand or less frequent updates suffice.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "a period of time" is not explicitly defined, which could support a construction that covers any interval, whether fixed or variable.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as updating "every 60 seconds" or "every two minutes," to ensure participants have an "accurate outlook" of the jackpot amount (’214 Patent, col. 12:41-50, col. 13:50-53). This may support a narrower construction requiring regular, frequent, and predetermined update intervals.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint states the action is for "inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)" (Compl. ¶1). However, the factual allegations focus on Defendant's direct acts of "offering for sale the Mega Money Jackpot" (Compl. ¶22) and do not plead specific facts to support the element of inducing a third party to infringe.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’214 Patent and its infringement through "at least two cease and desist letters" from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges that Defendant continued to offer the accused product for sale despite this awareness, forming the basis for the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶19, ¶23).

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

  • A primary issue will be evidentiary and factual: As the complaint's technical infringement theory relies on an un-provided exhibit, the case will turn on whether discovery reveals that the "Mega Money Jackpot" system actually operates using the specific architecture recited in the asserted claims. The core question is whether IWG's system contains a centralized controller that performs cross-jurisdictional ticket sequencing and periodic jackpot notifications as claimed.
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Assuming IWG's system includes some form of multi-jurisdictional coordination, the outcome will depend on the construction of key claim terms. Can the requirement to "sequence... tickets based on their times of purchase" be met by simple time-stamping, or does it require a more sophisticated process for resolving winner priority? Similarly, does the accused system's method for updating jackpot information meet the "period of time expires" limitation?