Jumbo Technology Co Ltd v. Evolution US LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jumbo Technology Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Defendant: Evolution US LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Sullivan & Worcester LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00660, D. Del., 01/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online casino games, particularly its “Lightning” series of games, infringe a patent related to an apparatus for generating dynamic, randomly increased payout odds in gambling games.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems used in both physical and online casino gaming to enhance player engagement by introducing variable, high-payout opportunities into traditional games of chance like roulette and baccarat.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of the patent-in-suit and its infringement allegations in correspondence beginning in June 2024, several months before filing suit. Defendant allegedly denied liability and declined to engage in licensing discussions. This pre-suit history forms the basis for the complaint’s willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,646,459 - "Incentive apparatus for gambling game systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,646,459, “Incentive apparatus for gambling game systems,” issued May 9, 2017 (the “’459 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a problem with traditional gambling games where the odds are fixed and the player’s return ratio is relatively low. This can cause players to become bored, feel the game is unfair, or become frustrated by losing money quickly, leading them to stop playing (’459 Patent, col. 1:35-45; Compl. ¶12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an “incentive apparatus” for a gambling game system that adds a layer of excitement. The apparatus includes a “dynamic raised odds calculation element” that randomly selects one or more possible game outcomes and replaces their standard payout odds with new, higher “dynamic raised odds” for that round of play (’459 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:59-64). This gives players a chance at a significantly larger payout than normal, while the system can adjust the probability of these enhanced payouts to ensure long-term profitability for the house (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to convert a static game structure into a more dynamic and less predictable one, thereby increasing player engagement and extending playtime (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A betting table with a plurality of betting zones for different game results, each with a payout odd.
  • A calculation element containing a "dynamic raised odds choosing module" and a "payout module."
  • The dynamic raised odds choosing module connects to the betting table, retrieves game results, and "replaces the original payout odds of one of the plurality of game results, which is randomly selected, with a dynamic raised odds."
  • The payout module pays out winnings based on the selected game result.
  • An electronic display board connected to the calculation element that displays the dynamic raised odds for at least one game result.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant’s “Lightning games,” including but not limited to “Lightning Roulette,” “Red Door Roulette,” and “Lightning Dice” games (Compl. ¶¶6, 28).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these are online casino games offered through various gambling operators (Compl. ¶6). The core accused functionality is a "real-time multiplier rewards feature" that is alleged to implement the patented "Randomly Generated Dynamic Raised Odds" system (Compl. ¶¶6, 28). Plaintiff alleges that these games have become "extremely popular and financially successful" as a direct result of incorporating this feature (Compl. ¶6). The complaint provides Figure 8, depicting a physical embodiment of a roulette game described in the patent, as an analogue to the accused online "Lightning Roulette" game (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in an exhibit that was not available for review (Compl. ¶28). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

’459 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the term "betting table," which is described in the patent with reference to both physical tables and electronic interfaces, can be construed to cover the purely software-based, virtual environments of the accused online games.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused "real-time multiplier rewards feature" actually "replaces the original payout odds" as required by the claim language. The analysis may focus on whether the accused system calculates a standard payout and then applies a separate, additive bonus (which may not infringe), or if it truly substitutes the base payout rate with a new, higher rate for the selected outcomes (which may infringe).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "betting table"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to the issue of whether the patent's claims, which describe physical embodiments, read on the Defendant's purely online, software-based games. The scope of "betting table" will likely determine if the accused products can meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the betting table "can also be an electronic betting interface with an electronic screen" (’459 Patent, col. 3:49-50). The patent includes figures for such electronic interfaces (e.g., Fig. 5, Fig. 7, Fig. 9), which may support a construction that encompasses virtual, screen-based interfaces.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently describes physical table setups (’459 Patent, Figs. 2, 6, 8) and uses language such as "drawn and marked on the table surface" (’459 Patent, col. 3:4-5). This language could be used to argue that the term requires a physical component or a direct analogue to one, potentially limiting its application to software-only products.

The Term: "replaces the original payout odds"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific mechanism of the invention. Infringement will depend heavily on whether the accused "multiplier" feature performs this exact "replacement" function. Practitioners may focus on this term because a different technical implementation, such as an additive bonus, could fall outside the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The purpose of the invention is to provide an "extra incentive" (’459 Patent, col. 4:11). Parties arguing for a broader scope might contend that any mechanism achieving this incentive by applying a multiplier to a random outcome should be considered equivalent to a "replacement."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses the specific word "replaces" when describing the operation (e.g., the dynamic raised odds "replace the payout odds," ’459 Patent, col. 3:59). The detailed examples in the complaint, drawn from the patent, describe a direct substitution of one payout ratio for another (e.g., a 35:1 payout is replaced with a 42:1 payout) (Compl. ¶15). This suggests a specific, non-additive technical step.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant advertises its "Lightning games" to casinos and game operators to encourage them to offer the infringing products to players in the United States (Compl. ¶34). It further alleges that Defendant promotes and supplies these games to online casinos in states where it holds licenses (Compl. ¶¶35-36).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’459 Patent since at least June 17, 2024, via a letter from Plaintiff, and knowledge of its infringement since at least August 27, 2024, via a follow-up letter providing more detail (Compl. ¶¶21, 23, 30). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement after these communications was deliberate and intentional (Compl. ¶26).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "betting table," which the patent illustrates using both physical gaming tables and electronic interfaces, be construed to cover the purely virtual, software-based platforms of the accused online casino games?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused "real-time multiplier rewards feature" function by "replacing" the standard payout odds with a new value, as required by Claim 1, or does it operate as an additive bonus calculated separately from the base payout, potentially creating a mismatch in technical operation?
• A third central question will concern willfulness: given the pre-suit notice and infringement allegations detailed in the complaint, the court will likely need to determine whether Defendant's decision to continue its accused conduct was objectively reckless, thereby justifying an enhancement of damages.