DCT
2:04-cv-01676
IGT VS Alliance Gaming corporation, etal
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: IGT (Nevada)
- Defendant: Alliance Gaming Corporation (Nevada); Bally Gaming International, Inc. (Delaware); Bally Gaming, Inc. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lionel Sawyer & Collins; O'Melveny & Myers LLP
- Case Identification: 2:04-cv-01676, D. Nev., 12/07/2004
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants maintaining a principal place of business in the District of Nevada.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic gaming machines and player tracking systems infringe six patents related to secondary payout indicators (bonus rounds), linked progressive jackpots, distinct reel sets for bonus games, and player tracking interfaces.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to features in electronic gaming machines designed to enhance player engagement and offer complex award structures beyond traditional reel-based payouts.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any pre-suit litigation or licensing history between the parties. The '646 and '932 patents claim priority to a 1994 application, suggesting a long prosecution history that may be relevant to claim construction.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994-04-05 | ’891 Patent Priority Date |
| 1994-09-23 | ’646 Patent Priority Date |
| 1994-09-23 | ’932 Patent Priority Date |
| 1996-03-22 | ’573 Patent Priority Date |
| 1998-03-03 | ’891 Patent Issued |
| 1998-08-04 | ’573 Patent Issued |
| 1998-12-15 | ’932 Patent Issued |
| 2001-04-19 | ’985 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-09-20 | ’698 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-03-30 | ’698 Patent Issued |
| 2004-04-20 | ’985 Patent Issued |
| 2004-12-07 | ’646 Patent Issued |
| 2004-12-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,827,646 - Slot Machine with an Additional Payout Indicator (Issued Dec. 7, 2004)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a desire to offer players games with new and additional opportunities to receive winning payouts beyond conventional slot machine reel combinations (’646 Patent, col. 1:56–62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a gaming device that combines a primary game (such as traditional spinning reels) with a secondary, physically separate and discernible payout indicator, such as a large rotatable wheel. This secondary indicator is activated only when the primary game results in a specific, predetermined outcome, creating a "bonus round" that offers different or enhanced payouts (’646 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1–10). Figure 2 illustrates a slot machine with three lower reels (110) and a large upper bonus wheel (150).
- Technical Importance: This approach integrated a "game show" element into the standard slot machine format, a significant development in enhancing player excitement and engagement (’646 Patent, col. 1:47–55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system.
- Claim 1 Elements:
- a value-input device;
- a first slot machine reel having a plurality of first reel symbols disposed thereon;
- a second slot machine reel having a plurality of second reel symbols disposed thereon;
- a third slot machine reel having a plurality of third reel symbols disposed thereon;
- a movable mechanical payout indicator comprising a rotatable wheel payout indicator having a face...;
- one of said first, second and third slot machine reels being rotatable about an axis that is not parallel to said axis about which said rotatable wheel payout indicator is rotatable;
- a plurality of circumferentially arranged payout areas...disposed on said face of said rotatable wheel...;
- a plurality of payout amount symbols disposed on said rotatable wheel payout indicator...;
- a random generator that randomly selects a payout amount;
- a control unit operatively coupled to said random generator...and to said rotatable wheel payout indicator; and
- an actuator button that, upon actuation by a player, causes said rotatable wheel payout indicator to rotate...
U.S. Patent No. 5,848,932 - Method of Playing Game and Gaming Games with an Additional Payout Indicator (Issued Dec. 15, 1998)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’646 Patent, the '932 Patent addresses the desire to provide players with new games and additional winning opportunities beyond the base game (’932 Patent, col. 1:52–57).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for conducting a game of chance. The method involves a player placing a wager to actuate a primary game, which displays a randomly selected outcome. If the outcome is a preselected bonus trigger, a secondary gaming unit (such as a mechanical bonus indicator in the form of a disc) is activated to provide a bonus payout (’932 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45–59).
- Technical Importance: This patent claims the process for integrating a bonus round into a standard slot machine game, protecting the gameplay method itself in addition to the physical apparatus.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 17 is a representative method claim.
- Claim 17 Elements:
- providing a player with an opportunity to place a wager to actuate a primary gaming unit;
- said primary gaming unit displaying a randomly selected primary display to a player...;
- providing a secondary gaming unit having a plurality of possible bonus payouts, said second gaming unit providing a player with a randomly selected bonus payout...if said primary display is a preselected bonus indicia set.
U.S. Patent No. 5,788,573 - Electronic Game Method and Apparatus with Hierarchy of Simulated Wheels
- Issued: Aug. 4, 1998.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for creating extremely high-odds jackpots by using a hierarchy of simulated bonus wheels. A player must achieve a specific outcome on a first wheel to gain a spin on a second, higher-value wheel, with the odds of winning the grand prize being the product of the odds of each successive spin (’573 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶21).
- Accused Features: "Quartermillions" linked progressive gaming machines (Compl. ¶21).
U.S. Patent No. 5,722,891 - Slot Machine Having Two Distinct Sets of Reels
- Issued: Mar. 3, 1998.
- Technology Synopsis: The invention is a slot machine with a first set of reels for a normal game and a second, distinct set of reels used exclusively for a bonus game. The bonus game is triggered by a specific win in the normal game, and the two sets of reels can have different appearances, symbols, and operational characteristics (’891 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶26).
- Accused Features: "Frenzy" gaming machines (Compl. ¶26).
U.S. Patent No. 6,712,698 - Game Service Interfaces for Player Tracking Touch Screen Display
- Issued: Mar. 30, 2004.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a player tracking unit with a touch screen display that presents various game service interfaces. These interfaces allow a player to perform functions beyond simple identification, such as redeeming prizes, making reservations, or viewing account information, using buttons and hand-writing recognition on the touch screen (’698 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶31).
- Accused Features: "iVIEW" touch screen display device (Compl. ¶31).
U.S. Patent No. 6,722,985 - Universal Player Tracking System
- Issued: Apr. 20, 2004.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a "universal" player tracking unit that stores a plurality of different communication protocols in memory. This allows a single hardware unit to communicate with different types of gaming machines and different back-end player tracking servers, solving an interoperability problem for casino operators using equipment from multiple manufacturers (’985 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶36).
- Accused Features: "iVIEW" touch screen display device (Compl. ¶36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities include several categories of electronic gaming machines and devices manufactured and sold by Defendants, identified by brand names such as "Lucky Wheel," "Monte Carlo," "Top Box," "Quartermillions," and "Frenzy" (Compl. ¶¶12, 16, 21, 26). Additionally, the "iVIEW" touch screen display device is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶31, 36).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are "gaming machines" and a "touch screen display device" used in the casino industry (Compl. ¶¶12, 31). It does not provide specific technical details about the operation of these products, instead identifying them by their marketing names and alleging that they incorporate the patented technologies. The complaint alleges these devices are made, used, sold, advertised, and marketed by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶12, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a general allegation of infringement for each patent without mapping specific claim elements to features of the accused products. The following charts summarize the infringement theory as implied by the identification of the accused products.
U.S. Patent No. 6,827,646 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a value-input device | The accused gaming machines include mechanisms for accepting wagers, such as coin or bill acceptors. | ¶12 | col. 4:14-18 |
| a first slot machine reel...a second slot machine reel...a third slot machine reel | The accused gaming machines are alleged to have a primary game based on slot machine reels. | ¶12 | col. 4:10-14 |
| a movable mechanical payout indicator comprising a rotatable wheel payout indicator | The accused "Lucky Wheel," "Monte Carlo," and "Cash Wheel" machines are alleged to incorporate a bonus wheel feature. | ¶12 | col. 4:57-60 |
| an actuator button that, upon actuation by a player, causes said rotatable wheel...to rotate | The accused machines are alleged to provide a player-activated button to initiate the bonus wheel spin. | ¶12 | col. 4:50-57 |
U.S. Patent No. 5,848,932 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a player with an opportunity to place a wager to actuate a primary gaming unit | The accused gaming machines are operated by players placing wagers. | ¶16 | col. 1:29-34 |
| said primary gaming unit displaying a randomly selected primary display to a player... | The accused gaming machines operate a primary game, such as spinning reels, that results in a random outcome. | ¶16 | col. 1:34-42 |
| providing a secondary gaming unit having a plurality of possible bonus payouts...if said primary display is a preselected bonus indicia set | The accused "Lucky Wheel," "Top Box," and other machines are alleged to initiate a bonus game feature upon a specific outcome in the primary reel game. | ¶16 | col. 2:1-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’646 Patent will be the scope of "movable mechanical payout indicator." The analysis may explore whether this term, in a patent with a 1994 priority date, can be construed to cover purely video-based representations of a bonus wheel, which may be present in some of the accused "Top Box" machines.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims. A key factual question will be whether the accused devices' bonus features are truly "rotatable about an axis that is not parallel to" the axis of the reels, as required by claim 1 of the ’646 Patent. For the method claims of the ’932 Patent, discovery will be required to establish that the accused devices perform the claimed steps in the required order.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’646 Patent
- The Term: "movable mechanical payout indicator" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the claimed invention, defining the bonus feature. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to devices with physical, tangible moving parts for the bonus round or if it can also read on video simulations of such mechanisms. Practitioners may focus on this term because the evolution from physical to video-based gaming machines is a critical technological distinction in the industry.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests alternative embodiments, stating that "gaming devices having electronic means for displaying indicia of rotatable reels such as a video screen" are within the scope of the invention (’646 Patent, col. 2:42–45).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "mechanical" suggests a physical apparatus. The preferred embodiment described in detail and shown in Figure 2 features a physical, rotatable bonus wheel (150) separate from the reels (110), which may support an interpretation that requires a non-virtual, physical component.
For the ’932 Patent
- The Term: "secondary gaming unit" (Claim 17)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the bonus-providing component in the claimed method. The scope of "unit" is critical for determining what constitutes an infringing bonus feature—whether it must be a physically distinct piece of hardware or if it can be a software module or a mode of operation within a single video display.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the invention includes embodiments with "electronic means for displaying indicia of rotatable reels such as a video screen and/or means for displaying indicia of a secondary payout indicator, such as a video screen" (’932 Patent, col. 2:41–49). This suggests a "unit" can be an electronic or software-based feature.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the invention as comprising "a standard gaming unit, e.g., three reels, and a discernible additional payout indicator, e.g., a rotatable wheel," which may suggest that the "secondary gaming unit" is a physically distinct component from the "standard gaming unit" (’932 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes a boilerplate allegation of inducing and contributory infringement for all six patents but provides no specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on the infringing use (Compl. ¶¶12, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that infringement of the ’932, ’573, ’891, ’698, and ’985 patents has been willful and "carried out with full knowledge" of the patents (Compl. ¶¶18, 23, 28, 33, 38). No specific facts supporting when or how Defendants acquired this alleged knowledge are provided. The complaint does not explicitly allege willfulness for the ’646 Patent, which issued on the same day the complaint was filed.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological scope: can claim terms rooted in the mechanical and electro-mechanical gaming era of the mid-1990s, such as "movable mechanical payout indicator," be construed to cover the potentially more modern, video-based, or software-driven features of the accused products?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual mapping: as the complaint provides no technical details, the case will depend entirely on evidence developed during discovery to establish whether the operational specifics of the accused "Lucky Wheel" or "iVIEW" systems, among others, actually meet each limitation of the asserted claims.
- A central question for damages will be one of knowledge and intent: what evidence, if any, can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of five of the asserted patents to support the claim of willful infringement, an allegation made without any supporting factual predicate in the complaint?