Tabletop Media LLC v. AMI Entertainment Network LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tabletop Media, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AMI Entertainment Network, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P. of counsel)
• Case Identification: Tabletop Media, LLC v. AMI Entertainment Network, LLC, 1:16-cv-01121, D. Del., 12/02/2016
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both parties are Delaware limited liability companies and subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff Tabletop Media seeks a declaratory judgment that its Ziosk pay-at-the-table tablet system does not infringe Defendant AMI Entertainment's patent related to time-based operating modes for amusement devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns tabletop electronic devices, typically found in restaurants, that provide patrons with entertainment options like games and integrate the cost of that entertainment into the final dining bill.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed after Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant on November 7, 2016, alleging that Plaintiff's Ziosk tablet infringes the patent-in-suit and demanding that Plaintiff enter a license agreement. Subsequent communications between the parties, including their respective counsel, failed to resolve the dispute, leading Plaintiff to file this action to resolve the "actual and justiciable controversy."

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,403,091 - "Amusement Device Having Time-Based Operating Modes"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,403,091, "Amusement Device Having Time-Based Operating Modes", issued August 2, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inflexibilities in traditional pay-per-game amusement machines. These machines may require users to pay for each individual game, and regulations in some jurisdictions can create issues regarding leftover credits, potentially limiting revenue for operators who might otherwise charge higher per-game prices to avoid providing refunds (’091 Patent, col. 1:36-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an amusement device that offers a more flexible, time-based payment model. As described in the specification, the device's controller is configured to grant a user a "block of time" to access the device, during which the user can play a first game and then switch to a different, second game. The cost is based on the block of time purchased, and the system can be configured to add this cost as a line item to a restaurant bill (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-33). This concept is illustrated in user interface screens like Figure 15, which shows an option to "PURCHASE A 15 MINUTE BLOCK OF TIME AND PLAY AS MANY GAMES AS YOU WISH DURING THAT TIME PERIOD" (’091 Patent, Fig. 15).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to move beyond the traditional coin-operated, per-play model toward a subscription-like or time-rental model for casual gaming in venues like restaurants, potentially increasing user engagement and operator revenue (’091 Patent, col. 2:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any of the claims" of the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a "table-top, counter-top, or table-mounted amusement device" comprising:
  • A frame with a base for contacting a table or counter
  • A touchscreen display
  • A currency accepter
  • A memory storing a system control program
  • A communications driver
  • A controller configured to:
    • (i) grant a user a "block of time" to play one game and then at least one other different game, and
    • (ii) determine a total amount owed "for the block of time" for inclusion as a line item on a food and/or beverage check (’091 Patent, col. 8:41-68).
• The complaint does not specify any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Plaintiff’s "pay-at-the-table tablet for the dining segment," also referred to as the "Ziosk tablet" (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint characterizes the Ziosk tablet as a device that "develops and distributes a tablet device" for use in restaurants (Compl. ¶7). According to Defendant’s allegations as recounted in the complaint, the Ziosk tablet includes features that allow "restaurant diners to play a game on the tablet and pay for that game as part of the diners' food and beverage bill" (Compl. ¶7). The device is positioned as a pay-at-the-table solution for the dining industry.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being one for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its non-infringement theory. Instead, it makes a general assertion that the Ziosk tablet "does not infringe and has not infringed any of the claims of the '091 patent" (Compl. ¶18). Consequently, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided document.

The core of the dispute, as framed by the complaint, stems from Defendant AMI's allegation that the Ziosk tablet "includes the functionality described in the '091 patent" (Compl. ¶7). The specific functionality cited is the ability for diners to "play a game on the tablet and pay for that game as part of the diners' food and beverage bill" (Compl. ¶7). Plaintiff Tabletop disputes this, contending that "the '091 patent had no relevance for Ziosk" (Compl. ¶9). The dispute appears to hinge on claim construction (Compl. ¶15).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether Plaintiff's Ziosk tablet, described as a "pay-at-the-table tablet for the dining segment" (Compl. ¶1), falls within the scope of the claimed "amusement device" (’091 Patent, cl. 1). The patent's background focuses on traditional game machines, raising the question of whether a device primarily used for ordering and payment processing fits the claim's definition.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the Ziosk tablet's gaming and payment functions operate. Does the device in fact "grant a user a block of time" for playing multiple games, as required by claim 1, or does it use a different model, such as pay-per-game? The complaint does not provide evidence on this point, but the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the Ziosk tablet's functionality matches the specific time-based billing method claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "amusement device"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental. Plaintiff's product is a "pay-at-the-table tablet" (Compl. ¶1), which may have a primary function of payment processing and ordering, with gaming as an ancillary feature. Defendant's patent is titled "Amusement Device..." and the claims recite this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the '091 Patent applies to multi-function point-of-sale devices or is limited to devices primarily dedicated to entertainment.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition that limits the term. A party could argue that any device that provides "amusement" (e.g., games) falls within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, regardless of other functions it may perform.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's "Background of the Invention" section consistently refers to "amusement devices, such as game machines" and discusses their placement in "bars, restaurants, airports, shopping malls, video arcades and the like" (’091 Patent, col. 1:24-30). This context, focused on traditional gaming environments, may support an interpretation that an "amusement device" must be a device whose principal purpose is entertainment, not payment processing.

• The Term: "grant a user a block of time"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific payment model claimed. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the Ziosk tablet actually sells access to games in discrete "blocks of time." If the accused product uses a different model (e.g., a flat fee for unlimited access, a per-game charge), it may not infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any time-limited access, even if not explicitly sold as a "block," meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides specific examples of this feature, such as an operator-adjustable setting for a "block of time" (e.g., "15 Minutes") for a set cost (’091 Patent, col. 6:45-50; Fig. 9). The user interface in Figure 15 explicitly prompts a user to "PURCHASE A 15 MINUTE BLOCK OF TIME" (’091 Patent, Fig. 15). This may support a narrower construction requiring an explicit, selectable, predefined period of access sold to the user.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a pre-emptive declaration that its actions do not "contribute to or induce the infringement of any of the claims of the '091 patent" (Compl. ¶18). No specific facts related to knowledge or intent are detailed.
• Willful Infringement: No allegations of willful infringement are made in the complaint.

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

This declaratory judgment action appears poised to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical operation. The outcome may depend on the answers to the following:

1. A core issue will be one of "definitional scope": can the term "amusement device", as used in a patent emerging from the context of arcade-style game machines, be construed to cover a modern, multi-function restaurant point-of-sale tablet where gaming may be an ancillary feature?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of "operational mechanics": does the Plaintiff's Ziosk tablet actually implement the specific "grant a user a block of time" payment model as detailed in the patent's specification and required by the claims, or does it utilize a different commercial model for its gaming content that falls outside the patent's scope?