DCT
1:17-cv-00916
AMI Entertainment Network LLC v. E La Carte Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AMI Entertainment Network, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: E La Carte, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00916, D. Del., 07/07/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed to reside in the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Presto Smart Dining System infringes a patent related to tabletop amusement devices that offer a time-based payment model instead of a traditional pay-per-game model.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns countertop electronic terminals, commonly found in restaurants and bars, that provide gaming and entertainment, and monetizing that usage based on blocks of time.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2003. The complaint notes that the original inventors assigned their interest in the application to Plaintiff AMI in 2004, establishing Plaintiff's standing to sue.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-16 | '091 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application filing) |
| 2004-08-30 | Inventors assign application interest to Plaintiff AMI |
| 2016-08-02 | '091 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-07-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 identifies issues with traditional pay-per-play amusement devices, including regulatory concerns over remaining credit balances, which can be construed as a form of gambling, and lost revenue potential from fixed per-game pricing ('091 Patent, col. 1:46-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an amusement device that offers a "time based mode," allowing a user to purchase a "block of time" during which they can play multiple different games. This shifts the payment model from per-game to time-based access. The patent describes configurations where time is purchased in advance or where the user is billed retroactively for the time used ('091 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-15). The user interface for setting a "Per Time Rate" is illustrated in Figure 9 ('091 Patent, col. 6:45-50).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided an alternative monetization strategy for tabletop entertainment, allowing operators to sell access based on duration rather than discrete plays, which could increase revenue and user engagement while navigating certain gaming regulations ('091 Patent, col. 2:4-15).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 7 (method), as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) recites:
- A table-top, counter-top, or table-mounted amusement device comprising a frame, a touchscreen display, a currency accepter, a memory, and a communications driver.
- A controller configured to (i) grant a user a "block of time" to play one or more different electronic games, where game scores do not affect the time granted, 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."
- Independent Claim 7 (Method) recites:
- A method of providing entertainment using a tabletop amusement device with the hardware recited in claim 1.
- The steps of (b) granting a "block of time" to play multiple different games, (c) determining the total payment owed for that time, and (d) "including the total amount as a line item on a food and/or beverage check."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Presto Smart Dining System" ("Initially Accused Product") (Compl. ¶14).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint describes the Presto system as a tabletop or countertop "amusement device" that includes a touchscreen, credit card scanner, memory, wi-fi connection, and a controller (Compl. ¶18).
- The system's controller is alleged to "grant a user a block of time to retrieve and play electronic games." This block of time is defined as starting when the user accepts a fee and ending when the user pays their bill (Compl. ¶18).
- Crucially, the complaint alleges the system "adds the payment owed for the block of time to the customer's bill, along with his or her food and beverage order" (Compl. ¶18).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’091 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A table-top, counter-top, or table-mounted amusement device... | The Initially Accused Product is an amusement device configured for display on a table-top or counter-top. | ¶18 | col. 8:40-42 |
| a currency accepter mounted to or disposed in the frame | The product includes a credit card scanner in the top portion of the frame. | ¶18 | col. 8:49-51 |
| a communications driver disposed in the frame | The product includes a wi-fi connection for communication. | ¶18 | col. 8:54-55 |
| (i) grant a user a block of time during which the user is permitted to selectively retrieve and play one of a plurality of electronic games and retrieve and play at least one other of the plurality of electronic games... providing a score that does not affect the block of time granted... | The controller is configured to grant a user a block of time to retrieve and play electronic games... The electronic games are each different... and provide a score... not associated with the block of time. | ¶18 | col. 9:1-8 |
| (ii) determine a total amount of a payment or credit owed for the block of time for inclusion as a line item on a food and/or beverage check presented to the user. | The Initially Accused Product then adds the payment owed for the block of time to the customer's bill, along with his or her food and beverage order. | ¶18 | col. 9:9-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the term "block of time" requires a discrete, pre-defined duration (e.g., 15 minutes for $2.50) or if it can read on the accused product's alleged functionality of an open-ended session that ends only "upon the user's entry of instructions to pay his or her bill" (Compl. ¶18).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a "wi-fi connection" meets the "communications driver disposed in the frame" limitation. A question for the court could be whether "communications driver," a term that can refer to software, is met by a "wi-fi connection," which typically refers to hardware and a protocol, and whether that connection is "disposed in the frame" as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "block of time"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's monetization model. The case may turn on whether the accused product's open-ended, retroactively billed gaming session constitutes a "block of time" as understood in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses a mode where a user may play "for as long as they desire or until a predetermined period of time has elapsed thereby causing the user to be billed for the time retroactively," which could support a more flexible, non-pre-purchased definition ( '091 Patent, col. 2:10-15).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides specific examples of purchasing fixed durations, such as charging a "flat rate of say $2.50 to play as many games as they like for say fifteen minutes of play time" ('091 Patent, col. 5:11-13). Figure 15 explicitly depicts a user-facing screen for a "15 MINUTE BLOCK OF TIME," which may suggest the term implies a defined, quantifiable unit of time known to the user at the start.
The Term: "for inclusion as a line item on a food and/or beverage check"
- Context and Importance: This term defines how the gaming charge is integrated into the restaurant's billing process. Infringement will depend on evidence showing the Presto system technically performs this specific integration, rather than simply creating a separate transaction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes billing "as an added line item on an overall food and/or beverage check" ('091 Patent, col. 6:25-27), suggesting a general integration with the final bill.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: This language is quite specific. A defendant might argue that if its system generates a separate charge or tab that is merely paid at the same time as the food bill, it does not meet the technical requirement of being included as a line item on the check itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant infringes by "providing a method for users to utilize the features" of the accused product (Compl. ¶18). This language supports a claim for induced infringement. The allegation that the product "does not have any substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶15) is language directed to a claim of contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of willful infringement (Compl. ¶19) but does not plead any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the '091 patent, such as a notice letter or knowledge of the patent family.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "block of time," which the patent at times describes as a discrete, purchased unit (e.g., 15 minutes), be construed to cover the open-ended, retroactively-billed gaming session allegedly offered by the accused product?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will show that the accused Presto system performs the specific claimed function of including the charge "for inclusion as a line item on a food and/or beverage check," as opposed to merely facilitating a separate payment that is consolidated with the food bill?
- A central procedural question will be the basis for willfulness: given the absence of factual allegations supporting pre-suit knowledge, the willfulness claim may be limited to post-suit conduct, and its initial pleading may face scrutiny under federal pleading standards.