DCT
0:24-cv-61148
Innovative Gaming Concepts LLC v. Jackpot Digital Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Innovative Gaming Concepts LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Jackpot Digital Inc. (Canadian), et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Johnson | Dalal; Gray-Robinson, P.A.
- Case Identification: 0:24-cv-61148, S.D. Fla., 03/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants' alleged business activities within the Southern District of Florida, including installing and operating the accused products on cruise ships departing from Fort Lauderdale, and marketing and selling the products to consumers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Jackpot Blitz" electronic poker table, which includes a "Bet the Flop" side bet feature, infringes a patent related to methods and systems for conducting a side bet in a poker game.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic gaming systems that integrate a house-banked side bet into a traditionally player-banked poker game, creating a new revenue stream for casino operators.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed pre-suit history, including a July 2019 email from Plaintiff to Defendant proposing licensing discussions, followed by Defendant’s launch of the accused product features in September 2019. Plaintiff also alleges sending two cease-and-desist letters in December 2019 and February 2023, and that subsequent settlement discussions were unsuccessful. These allegations form the basis for the willfulness claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-01-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,475,289 |
| 2019-07-16 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of its protected side bets |
| 2019-09-16 | Defendant allegedly announces the accused "Bet the Flop" feature |
| 2019-11-12 | U.S. Patent No. 10,475,289 issues |
| 2019-11-18 | Alleged installation of Accused Product in Fort Lauderdale, FL |
| 2019-12-17 | Plaintiff allegedly sends first cease-and-desist letter |
| 2020-01-22 | Alleged installation of Accused Product in Orlando, FL |
| 2023-02-24 | Plaintiff allegedly sends second cease-and-desist letter |
| 2025-03-27 | Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,475,289 - Method, System, and Device for Conducting a Side Bet for a Poker Game
- Issued: November 12, 2019 (’289 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for casino operators to generate additional revenue from player-banked poker games (like Texas Hold'em), which traditionally provide income only through a "rake" (a commission taken by the house) ('289 Patent, col. 6:1-9). The invention aims to introduce a house-banked game of chance alongside the skill-based poker game.
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an electronic device and method for implementing a side bet that is resolved based on the composition of the first three community cards (the "flop") dealt in a poker game ('289 Patent, col. 3:50-59). A game controller accepts the side bet, compares the dealt flop cards to a predetermined set of winning combinations (e.g., a pair, a flush), and awards a payout if a winning combination occurs ('289 Patent, Abstract). The system also manages the side bet pot, including assigning portions to a progressive jackpot or carrying it over to the next hand if no flop is dealt ('289 Patent, col. 2:29-41).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a casino to introduce a consistent house edge into a peer-to-peer game, monetizing player downtime and increasing profitability per table ('289 Patent, col. 6:1-9; Compl. ¶31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an electronic device) and 5 (a method) (Compl. ¶48).
- Independent Claim 1 (Device): The essential elements are:
- An electronic device with a display, a user input device, and a wager input device.
- At least one gaming controller that communicates with a source of randomly generated game data.
- The controller is operative to: detect a wager for a base game and/or a side game; display playing cards for hands and community cards; determine the side game outcome by comparing the first three community cards to preset combinations; award a payout if triggered; maintain side bets in a pot for the next game if the current game ends before the community cards are dealt; and assign a portion of non-winning side bets to a progressive jackpot or collect them as a loss.
- Independent Claim 5 (Method): The essential elements are parallel to Claim 1 but framed as method steps performed by a game controller communicating with a remote user device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement is alleged for "at least" claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶48).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Jackpot Blitz" electronic table game, specifically its "Bet the Flop" side bet and a "Bad Beat Progressive Jackpot side bet" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The "Jackpot Blitz" is a dealer-less, electronic multiplayer poker table featuring a large touchscreen playing surface (Compl. ¶41, Exhibit J). The complaint alleges it offers side bets that allow players to wager on the outcome of the three flop cards simultaneously with playing a main poker game like Texas Hold'em (Compl. ¶12, "Monetize Downtime" image). A marketing image provided in the complaint shows a "Bet The Flop" pay table with specific payouts for hands like "Three of a Kind" and "Straight Flush" formed by the flop cards (Compl. ¶12, "BET THE FLOP" image). The complaint alleges Defendants market these products to the cruise ship and regulated casino industries, with installations on Carnival cruise ships and certifications for use in numerous U.S. states and international jurisdictions (Compl. ¶¶7, 13-14, 27). The complaint includes a social media post showing the "Jackpot Blitz" table being set up on the Carnival Magic cruise ship in Fort Lauderdale (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’289 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electronic device for displaying a side game associated with a base game to a player, comprising: a display device; a user input device...; a wager input device...; and at least one gaming controller... | The "Jackpot Blitz" is an electronic table with a 74" touchscreen, which serves as the display and user input device, and includes a game controller with processing devices and servers. | ¶¶41, 49; Exhibit J | col. 8:1-4 |
| ...the game controller...causing the display of standard playing cards of varying rank to form hands and a group of community playing cards in the base game on the display device; | The "Jackpot Blitz" table displays digital cards for Texas Hold'em games, including player hands and community cards. | ¶¶12, 49 | col. 8:10-14 |
| ...the game controller determining the outcome of the side game, wherein the outcome of the side game is determined by comparing the first three community playing cards with one or more preset combinations of playing cards; | The "Bet The Flop" side bet pays out based on the poker rank of the three flop cards, such as a pair (1:1) or three of a kind (35:1), as shown in marketing materials. | ¶¶10, 12, 49 | col. 8:15-19 |
| ...awarding a payout to the players from which a side bet is received responsive to the payout triggering event being triggered by the comparison; | The system awards payouts for winning "Bet The Flop" wagers. | ¶¶12, 49 | col. 8:20-23 |
| ...maintaining the side bets received in a pot to be made available for the next side game responsive to the group of community playing cards receiving less than a preset number of playing cards in the base game; | The complaint alleges infringement of all elements of claim 1, implying this functionality exists, but provides no specific visual or descriptive evidence of this "rollover" feature. | ¶49 | col. 8:24-28 |
| ...assigning a portion of the side bets received to a progressive jackpot and/or collecting the remainder as a loss responsive to the payout triggering event not being triggered. | The accused product is alleged to include a "Bad Beat Progressive Jackpot side bet," and the system collects losing "Bet The Flop" wagers for the house. | ¶¶10, 49 | col. 8:29-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question concerns the claim element requiring the system to "maintain...side bets in a pot to be made available for the next side game" if the flop is not dealt. The complaint alleges this element is met (Compl. ¶49), but does not provide specific evidence (e.g., from marketing or user manuals) demonstrating that the "Jackpot Blitz" system performs this specific "rollover" function. The plaintiff will likely need to establish this capability through discovery.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise a question of claim scope regarding the phrase "a side game associated with a base game." The defense could argue that the patent contemplates a separate side bet added to a distinct base game (e.g., a live table), whereas the "Jackpot Blitz" is a single, fully integrated electronic game. The plaintiff may counter that the patent's language is broad enough to cover an electronic game with distinct wagering components for a main game and a side bet.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a side game associated with a base game" (from the preamble of claim 1)
Context and Importance: The construction of this phrase is central to determining whether the patent's scope covers a fully integrated electronic poker table like "Jackpot Blitz." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will define whether the accused product, which presents a single unified user experience, can be said to have a "side game" that is merely "associated with" a "base game" as distinct concepts.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contemplates implementation on an "electronic/slot machine game" and online platforms, which could support reading the term on a single, integrated electronic system ('289 Patent, col. 7:1-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly distinguishes between the "base game" (described as a game of skill like Texas Hold'em) and the "side game" (described as a game of chance), and between "player-banked" and "house-banked" games, which may suggest that two functionally distinct games are required ('289 Patent, col. 2:58-65, col. 6:45-52).
The Term: "gaming controller" (from claim 1)
Context and Importance: The claims require a "gaming controller" to perform a series of specific functions. The complaint identifies the controller as "processing devices, servers and data storage devices" (Compl. ¶12, annotation). The physical and logical scope of the "controller" will be critical, as infringement requires a single entity to be performing the claimed steps.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification for method claim 5 describes the controller as "including processing devices, servers and data storage devices, configured to communicate with a remote user device," suggesting a distributed or networked architecture is contemplated ('289 Patent, col. 8:36-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Device claim 1 recites an "electronic device...comprising...at least one gaming controller." This language could support an argument that the controller must be a component contained within the physical "device" (the table itself), rather than a dispersed collection of remote servers. The complaint's own visual evidence notes an "Isolated server" as an operator benefit, which could be argued to be a distinct part of the system rather than the controller itself (Compl. ¶12).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants actively induce infringement by selling the "Jackpot Blitz" tables to third parties (e.g., cruise lines, casinos) and instructing them on how to use the infringing features (Compl. ¶¶50, 56).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It claims Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and infringement based on a July 2019 email exchange, two subsequent cease-and-desist letters, and failed licensing negotiations (Compl. ¶¶19, 22-24, 61). The complaint further alleges that Defendants launched the accused product just two months after the initial notice, suggesting deliberate conduct (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A central issue will be whether the patent's language, which distinguishes between a "base game" and an "associated side game," can be construed to cover the single, integrated software environment of the accused "Jackpot Blitz" electronic table.
- Evidentiary Proof of Functionality: A key evidentiary hurdle for the plaintiff will be to prove that the accused system performs every recited step of the asserted claims, particularly the "pot maintenance" or "rollover" function for hands where no flop is dealt—a feature not apparent from the marketing materials provided in the complaint.
- Objective Recklessness for Willfulness: Given the extensive pre-suit notice alleged by the plaintiff, a critical question for the fact-finder will be whether Defendants’ decision to launch and continue selling the accused product constituted objectively reckless disregard of a known risk of infringement, which could lead to enhanced damages.