DCT
1:23-cv-04985
Edgar Association v. Hammond Software Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The EDGAR Association (Illinois)
- Defendant: Hammond Software, Inc. (Georgia) and Nicolas Hammond (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kastorf Law; Jenner & Block LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04985, N.D. Ga., 10/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Northern District of Georgia on the basis that both the corporate and individual defendants are residents of Georgia and reside within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "EDGAR" cheating-detection software does not infringe Defendants' two patents, and that the patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using statistical analysis of game-play data to detect cheating in "incomplete information" games like competitive bridge, where illicit information sharing between partners provides a significant advantage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by a cease-and-desist letter sent by Defendants on April 18, 2022, which accused the EDGAR technology of infringement, asserted the patents-in-suit, and threatened to seek treble damages for willful infringement. The complaint also notes that subsequent negotiations between the parties were unsuccessful.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-03-09 | Priority Date for ’005 and ’912 Patents |
| 2021-05-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,014,005 Issued |
| 2022-01-01 | (Early 2022) Prototype of EDGAR technology presented |
| 2022-04-09 | EDGAR technology publicly announced |
| 2022-04-18 | Defendants send cease-and-desist letter to EDGAR developers |
| 2022-09-13 | U.S. Patent No. 11,439,912 Issued |
| 2023-10-19 | EDGAR Association enters agreement with American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) |
| 2023-10-30 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,014,005 - “Detecting Cheating and Changes in Playing Ability in Partial Knowledge and Trick-Taking Games”
- Issued: May 25, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of collusive cheating in the card game bridge, particularly methods that are not detectable through video evidence, such as pre-arranged, non-obvious signals between partners (ʼ005 Patent, col. 1:26-30). The patent aims to provide a method of detection "without video evidence" by using statistical analysis (ʼ005 Patent, col. 1:29-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer system that automates the detection of statistically anomalous play. It works by acquiring detailed board data from multiple bridge games, including player actions and timing information, and processing this data to determine performance values for players (ʼ005 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-50). These performance values are then compared against a pre-defined threshold, which is based on historical data from known cheating players and "optimal" play, to flag a likelihood of cheating and alert an administrator (ʼ005 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
- Technical Importance: The technology purports to solve a long-standing problem in competitive bridge by moving beyond human observation or video review and applying quantitative, data-driven methods to identify cheating that would otherwise be difficult to prove (ʼ005 Patent, col. 1:56-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint challenges all claims and focuses on the independent claims (Compl. ¶¶30-31, 35). Independent Claim 1 is representative.
- The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- Acquiring board data for multiple bridge games, including hand records, table result, contract, and declarer.
- Determining performance values for a player based on the board data and "timing information," which conveys how long the player took to make a call or play a card.
- Detecting a deviation by comparing the performance values against a "threshold" that is based on past performance of known cheaters and optimal bridge behavior.
- Alerting an administrative user about a likelihood of cheating by "automatically sending an electronic message" to the user.
- The complaint notes that independent claims 10 (a method) and 17 (a computer-readable medium) comprise the same four steps (Compl. ¶31).
U.S. Patent No. 11,439,912 - “Detecting Cheating and Changes in Playing Ability in Partial Knowledge and Trick-Taking Games”
- Issued: September 13, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the ’005 Patent, the ’912 Patent addresses the same problem of detecting sophisticated, non-obvious cheating in bridge through statistical analysis (’912 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that of the ’005 Patent, describing a system for acquiring and analyzing game data to flag anomalous play (’912 Patent, col. 2:45-62). However, a practitioner would note a critical distinction in the claims. The independent claims of the ’912 Patent were drafted to omit the requirement that performance values be determined using "timing information," broadening the claim scope relative to its parent patent.
- Technical Importance: This patent represents a broadening of the inventive concept claimed in the ’005 Patent, attempting to cover systems that perform statistical analysis without necessarily relying on the timing of a player's actions.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint challenges all claims and focuses on the independent claims (Compl. ¶¶32-33, 53). Independent Claim 1 is representative.
- The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- Acquiring board data for multiple bridge games.
- Determining performance values for a player based on the "board data."
- Detecting a deviation by comparing performance values against a "threshold."
- Alerting an administrative user by "automatically sending an electronic message."
- The complaint notes that independent claims 10 (a method) and 17 (a computer-readable medium) comprise the same four steps (Compl. ¶33).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "EDGAR technology" or "EDGAR software" (Compl. ¶¶6, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the EDGAR technology as a proprietary software tool that "analyzes player performance and issues reports that help to detect anomalous play suggesting a player has illicitly received information from his or her partner" (Compl. ¶16). It is alleged to be used by the American Contract Bridge League ("ACBL"), the governing body for competitive bridge in North America, to assist in its cheating-detection efforts (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges that the technology was developed by volunteers to help maintain the integrity of the game (Compl. ¶14).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, outlining several ways the EDGAR technology allegedly does not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.
’005 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining performance values for a player of the respective board based on the board data and timing information, wherein the timing information conveys how long the player took to make a call or play a card during the event; | The EDGAR technology "does not collect, determine, or utilize timing information." | ¶47 | col. 22:1-6 |
| detecting, by the processor, a deviation by comparing the performance values from a first event against a threshold... | The EDGAR technology "does not 'compar[e] ... performance values ... against a threshold.'" | ¶48 | col. 22:7-15 |
| alerting an administrative user for the first event regarding a likelihood of cheating when the deviation is detected, wherein the alert includes automatically sending an electronic message to the administrative user. | The EDGAR technology "does not automatically alert any sort of user in any such way upon making any sort of detection." | ¶49 | col. 22:16-20 |
’912 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting...a deviation by comparing the performance values from a first event against a threshold... | The EDGAR technology "does not 'compar[e] ... performance values ... against a threshold.'" | ¶61 | col. 22:20-28 |
| alerting an administrative user...regarding a likelihood of cheating...wherein the alert includes automatically sending an electronic message to the administrative user. | The EDGAR technology "does not alert any sort of user in any such way," such as through an email or application message. | ¶62 | col. 22:29-33 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute for the ’005 Patent centers on the "timing information" limitation, which the plaintiff alleges is entirely absent from its technology. For both patents, the dispute raises questions about the scope of "threshold" and "automatically sending an electronic message." Does a "threshold" require a specific, pre-set numerical cutoff, or can it cover any form of statistical anomaly detection? Does "automatically sending" preclude any human intervention between the system's detection and the user's notification?
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the EDGAR technology's analytical and reporting functions actually operate. What specific statistical methods does it use, and how does it present its findings to users? The answers will determine whether its functionality meets the "threshold" and "automatic alert" limitations as construed by the court. The complaint's failure to contest the "determining performance values" limitation of the ’912 Patent suggests the EDGAR technology does, in fact, perform analysis based on board data, focusing the dispute on the subsequent steps.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "timing information" (’005 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term is dispositive for the non-infringement analysis of the ’005 Patent. The plaintiff's primary argument is that its technology does not use this data whatsoever (Compl. ¶47). The construction will determine if this defense succeeds.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term is broad, but the claim itself provides a specific definition: "wherein the timing information conveys how long the player took to make a call or play a card during the event" (’005 Patent, col. 22:4-6). This limits the potential for broad interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is quite specific. The specification reinforces this by giving an explicit example: "(e.g., the time taken to make each call and the time taken to play each card)" (’005 Patent, col. 2:25-27). This suggests the term is narrowly tied to the duration of player actions.
The Term: "threshold"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis of both patents, as the plaintiff alleges its technology does not compare performance values against a "threshold" (Compl. ¶¶48, 61). Its definition will determine whether the EDGAR system's method of identifying anomalies falls within the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "threshold" encompasses any statistical trigger or boundary used to flag an event, not just a single, fixed number. The specification describes comparing values "against a threshold" generally, which may support a broader functional meaning (’005 Patent, col. 2:58-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly specific example: "anyone above 98.2% is cheating" (’005 Patent, col. 7:29-31). It also states that "past performance data for cheaters can be compiled into thresholds such that when a metric does not meet the threshold, cheating is indicated" (’005 Patent, col. 2:61-63). This language could be used to argue that a "threshold" must be a pre-compiled, specific value derived from known cheaters' data.
VI. Other Allegations
Invalidity Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaration that all claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid on four separate grounds (Compl. ¶66.A.):
- § 101 (Patentable Subject Matter): The claims are allegedly directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of detecting cheating by comparing player performance to historical data, a mental process performed on a generic computer (Compl. ¶¶35, 53).
- § 102 (Anticipation): The claims are allegedly invalid due to an on-sale bar, asserting that Defendants offered a product named "BridgeScore+" for sale more than one year before the patents' priority date (Compl. ¶¶40, 54).
- § 103 (Obviousness): The claims are alleged to be obvious in light of prior art related to collusion detection in online games, performance modeling in chess, and existing software for cheating detection in bridge (Compl. ¶¶41, 55).
- § 112 (Enablement/Written Description): The specification allegedly fails to teach a person of ordinary skill how to practice the invention, lacking sufficient detail on the statistical techniques, data acquisition, and thresholds required to make the system functional (Compl. ¶¶42, 56).
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not make a claim for willfulness. Instead, it notes that Defendants' cease-and-desist letter threatened a suit for willful infringement and treble damages, which establishes the "real and substantial" controversy necessary for a declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on three fundamental questions for the court:
Patent Eligibility: Are the claims, which recite a process of data gathering, analysis, and comparison, directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101? The resolution will depend on whether the claims are viewed as merely automating a long-standing mental process or as providing a specific, tangible improvement to computer functionality.
Claim Construction and Factual Infringement: A core issue will be one of definitional scope. For the ’005 Patent, the case may turn entirely on whether the accused EDGAR technology uses "timing information." For both patents, the dispute will depend on the construction of "threshold" and "automatically sending an electronic message," and whether the EDGAR system's actual operation falls within those definitions.
Validity and the On-Sale Bar: Can the plaintiff produce evidence to support its factual invalidity defense under 35 U.S.C. § 102? Discovery regarding the features and marketing of the alleged "BridgeScore+" product will be critical to determining if it constituted a public use or offer for sale that would invalidate the patents.