DCT
2:10-cv-00440
Bally Tech Inc v. Business Intelligence Systems Solutions Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bally Technologies, Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Business Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Watson Rounds
- Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00440, D. Nev., 03/29/2010
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper because Defendant conducts business and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the District of Nevada.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Bis2 Suite" data processing and visualization product infringes three patents related to data visualization, predictive analytics using neural networks, and database query systems, primarily for commercial environments.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for analyzing large datasets of customer interactions (e.g., in a casino) to visualize activity patterns and predict future behavior, such as revenue.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that all three patents-in-suit were originally issued to inventor Andrew J. Cardno, assigned to Compudigm International Limited, and subsequently assigned to Plaintiff Bally Technologies, Inc. on December 17, 2008, establishing Plaintiff's standing to assert the patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-07-13 | U.S. Patent No. 6,871,194 Priority Date |
| 2000-09-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,158,968 Priority Date |
| 2000-11-24 | U.S. Patent No. 7,221,367 Priority Date |
| 2001-03-12 | ’194 Patent assigned to Compudigm International Limited |
| 2003-07-14 | ’968 Patent assigned to Compudigm International Limited |
| 2003-10-01 | ’367 Patent assigned to Compudigm International Limited |
| 2005-03-22 | U.S. Patent No. 6,871,194 Issued |
| 2007-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,158,968 Issued |
| 2007-05-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,221,367 Issued |
| 2008-12-17 | All patents-in-suit assigned to Bally Technologies, Inc. |
| 2010-03-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,221,367 - "Queue Management System and Method," issued May 22, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty merchants face in analyzing large volumes of collected data on human activity, such as customer queues, to make operational improvements. Traditional systems focus on data capture, not intuitive interpretation. (’367 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that captures interaction data from monitoring apparatus (e.g., cameras) and generates a "contoured representation" of that data superimposed on a graphical map of the premises. This allows a user to visually identify areas of high activity (e.g., long queues) as local maxima or "hills" on the map. (’367 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-24).
- Technical Importance: The system translates raw numerical data into an intuitive visual format, enabling managers to understand and react to customer behavior patterns without needing to perform complex statistical analysis. (’367 Patent, col. 2:3-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’367 Patent (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- An interaction database of data from a monitoring apparatus representing customer-merchant interactions.
- A retrieval component to construct a finite set of data values from the database.
- A display component to show a graphical representation of the merchant's premises and the data values as data points.
- A contour generator to display contour lines around the data points, where each line represents a value less than the data point it surrounds, displaying the data point as a local maximum.
- The complaint does not specify dependent claims but reserves the right to assert them.
U.S. Patent No. 6,871,194 - "Interaction Prediction System and Method," issued March 22, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a key limitation of traditional data analysis: it is a "verification-driven hypothesis approach" where a merchant must first form a hypothesis and then run a query to test it. This process is difficult, requires technical expertise, and may not uncover unexpected patterns in the data. (’194 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses a "neural network" trained on a historical database of interactions (e.g., revenue from individual gaming machines) to predict future interactions. The system learns patterns from the data itself and presents these predictions for display, moving beyond simple hypothesis testing. (’194 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:39-45).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention represents a shift from reactive data querying to proactive, predictive analysis using a machine learning model to discover non-obvious relationships in business data. (’194 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’194 Patent (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- A memory maintaining a neural network trained on data from an interaction database (e.g., customer interactions with gaming machines, including a machine identifier and a monetary value).
- A retrieval component to activate the neural network and retrieve prediction data (e.g., predicted revenue).
- A display to show a representation of the prediction data.
- The complaint does not specify dependent claims but reserves the right to assert them.
U.S. Patent No. 7,158,968 - "Database Query System and Method," issued January 2, 2007
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,158,968, "Database Query System and Method," issued January 2, 2007. (Compl. ¶10).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the difficulty for users in creating customized data visualizations. The invention describes a method where visualization parameters, such as instructions to create a contour map or overlay data on a background image, are included directly within a database query expression (e.g., as an extension to standard SQL). This simplifies the process of generating complex, intuitive visual reports from raw data. (’968 Patent, col. 1:44-50; Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint generally asserts infringement of the ’968 Patent (Compl. ¶13). Key independent claims include 1, 5, 9, and 13.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Bis2 Suite" is a "data processing and visualization product" that infringes the patent, suggesting it provides users with tools to query data and generate visualizations based on that data. (Compl. ¶¶12, 13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Bis2 Suite" product. (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused product as a "data processing and visualization product." (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendant "manufactures, sells, offers for sale, uses, advertises, offers for lease and leases" this product suite. (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific functionality or market positioning of the Bis2 Suite.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a general allegation of infringement without a detailed claim chart. The following tables summarize the apparent infringement theory based on the description of the accused product as a "data processing and visualization product."
’367 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an interaction database maintained in computer memory of interaction data representing interactions between customers and merchants, the interaction data obtained from monitoring apparatus; | The Bis2 Suite is a "data processing" product that allegedly operates on data representing business interactions. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 10:9-13 |
| a retrieval component configured to retrieve...data representing interactions between customers and merchants and to construct a finite set of data values from the retrieved data; | The Bis2 Suite allegedly retrieves and processes data from a database to prepare it for visualization. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 10:14-18 |
| a display component configured to display a graphical representation of at least one merchant and a graphical representation of each of the set of data values centered on respective data points; and | The Bis2 Suite is a "visualization product" alleged to display graphical representations of data. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 10:19-23 |
| a contour generator configured to generate and display one or more contour lines...such that each data point is displayed as a local maximum. | The Bis2 Suite, as a "visualization product," is alleged to be capable of generating contoured displays similar to those claimed. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 10:24-30 |
’194 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a memory in which is maintained a neural network trained on data retrieved from an interaction database...including at least one gaming machine identifier, and at least one monetary value...; | The Bis2 Suite is a "data processing" product that allegedly uses predictive models, which Plaintiff contends meet the "neural network" limitation, trained on business interaction data. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 8:36-44 |
| a retrieval component arranged to activate the neural network and to retrieve prediction data representing predicted revenue from future interactions...; and | The Bis2 Suite allegedly processes data to generate and retrieve predictive outputs for visualization. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 8:46-51 |
| a display arranged to display a representation of the prediction data. | The Bis2 Suite is a "visualization product" alleged to display the results of its data processing, including any predictions. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 8:52-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the "Bis2 Suite" actually implements the specific technologies claimed. For the ’194 Patent, this centers on whether the product uses a "neural network" or another form of predictive model. For the ’367 Patent, the question is whether the product’s visualizations meet the definition of a "contour generator" that creates "contour lines" around a local maximum.
- Scope Questions: The specifications of the patents-in-suit are heavily focused on the casino and gaming industry, with claim language in the ’194 Patent explicitly reciting "gaming machines" and "monetary value." A central legal question will be whether the scope of the claims can be construed to cover a general-purpose "data processing and visualization product" or if they are limited to the specific gaming context disclosed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "neural network" (’194 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central technical element of the ’194 Patent’s invention. Whether the accused Bis2 Suite infringes will likely depend on whether its data processing architecture can be characterized as a "neural network."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a common embodiment, a "multi layer perceptron having an input layer 202, a hidden layer 204, and an output layer 206," which could suggest the term encompasses a wide range of standard machine learning models with this structure. (’194 Patent, col. 5:20-23).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the neural network in the specific context of predicting revenue from gaming machines. (’194 Patent, col. 1:8-11). The detailed description of the training process, including setting weights and comparing predicted to actual data, may be argued to be integral to the claimed "neural network." (’194 Patent, FIG. 5; col. 6:50-65).
The Term: "contour generator" (’367 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific visualization output required by the claim. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the visualizations created by the Bis2 Suite meet this functional definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term should be read broadly to cover any visualization that depicts data intensity spatially, such as a heat map, even if it does not use discrete lines.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the generator to display "one or more contour lines" where each line represents a value "less than the data value(s) of the data point(s) around which the contour line is displayed." This language, combined with the specification's description of creating a "contoured 'hill'" with a "peak," suggests a specific structure of nested lines surrounding a maximum, potentially excluding other visualization types like simple color gradients. (’367 Patent, col. 6:38-42).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that Defendant's infringement has been "willful and deliberate." (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support this assertion, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Given the complaint’s general allegations, discovery will be critical to determine if the accused "Bis2 Suite" actually incorporates the specific technologies recited in the claims—namely, a "neural network" for predictive analysis (’194 Patent) and a "contour generator" that creates discrete lines around data peaks (’367 Patent)—or if it achieves its functions through alternative, potentially non-infringing methods.
- A key legal question will be one of claim scope and context: Can the claims, which are heavily described in the patents' specifications within the context of casino and gaming environments, be construed broadly enough to cover a general-purpose business intelligence software suite, or will their scope be limited by the specific applications disclosed?