DCT
2:14-cv-00723
Konami Gaming Inc v. Cadillac Jack Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Konami Gaming, Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Cadillac Jack, Inc. (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:14-cv-00723, D. Nev., 05/09/2014
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant operating and offering products for sale in the District of Nevada, transacting business in the district including at the G2E Gaming Conference, and placing infringing products into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase by residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic gaming machines incorporating a "Streaming Stacks" feature infringe three patents related to methods for displaying runs of identical symbols on simulated slot machine reels.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns software-based features in electronic slot machines designed to increase player engagement and winning probabilities by causing multiple, consecutive identical symbols to appear on the game's reels.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents form a family, with the '540 and '810 patents being continuations of the application that led to the '869 patent. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or other procedural events.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-02-14 | Earliest Priority Date ('869, '540, '810 Patents) |
| 2011-01-01 | Defendant began operating in Clark County, NV (approx.) |
| 2012-01-17 | U.S. Patent No. 8,096,869 Issued |
| 2013-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,366,540 Issued |
| 2014-01-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,622,810 Issued |
| 2014-05-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,096,869 - "Gaming Machine with Runs of Consecutive Identical Symbols," Issued Jan. 17, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a competitive market for gaming machines where manufacturers must constantly innovate to provide "novel and stimulating variations" on game themes, while still complying with government regulations that can restrict the degree of variation allowed ('869 Patent, col. 1:39-46). Prior art systems typically avoided having identical symbols in adjacent positions on a reel ('869 Patent, col. 1:47-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a gaming machine with simulated rotatable reels where at least one reel is arranged to have a "consecutive run" of identical symbols ('869 Patent, col. 2:5-14). Crucially, the specific identical symbol used to populate this run is "randomly selected anew for each play of said game," which is accomplished by a game controller consulting a notional "inner reel" or look-up table ('869 Patent, col. 4:48-58; col. 8:51-64). This creates the visual effect of a "stack" of identical symbols, increasing the odds of a winning combination ('869 Patent, col. 5:12-18).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to increase the probability of winning outcomes and heighten player interest withoutaltering the fundamental reel-spinning paradigm of traditional slot machines ('869 Patent, col. 5:12-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶10).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
- A gaming machine with a processor executing a game with a matrix of symbol-containing elements.
- At least one column of the matrix comprising a portion of a simulated rotatable reel.
- The reel including a "consecutive run of three or more" symbol elements populated by an "identical symbol."
- The identical symbol is "randomly selected anew for each play of said game."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶8).
U.S. Patent No. 8,366,540 - "Gaming Machine with Runs of Consecutive Identical Symbols," Issued Feb. 5, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation, the '540 Patent addresses the same general problem as the parent '869 Patent: creating novel game features in the highly competitive electronic slot machine market ('540 Patent, col. 1:41-46).
- The Patented Solution: The '540 Patent builds on the "run of identical symbols" concept but adds a temporal and replacement element. The invention claims a system where a run of elements is populated by a first identical symbol for a first play of the game. Then, a second identical symbol is randomly selected, and it replaces the first identical symbol in the run, with this second symbol being used for a second play of the game ('540 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-17).
- Technical Importance: This patented solution introduces a dynamic element where the "stacked" symbols can change from one game play to the next, offering a different type of variation compared to the parent invention.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 21 (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
- A gaming machine with a processor and display.
- A simulated reel with a "consecutive run of two or more" elements populated by a "first identical symbol" used for a "first play of said game."
- A "second identical symbol" is randomly selected.
- The "first identical symbol is replaced by the second identical symbol" in the run, with the second symbol being used for a "second play of said game."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶20).
U.S. Patent No. 8,622,810 - "Gaming Machine with Replacement of Runs of Symbols Containing Identical Symbols with New Identical Symbols," Issued Jan. 7, 2014
Technology Synopsis
This patent, also a continuation in the same family, further refines the concept of dynamically changing the stacked symbols on a reel. It claims a game controller that, after a first game instance using a reel with a run of a first identical symbol, randomly selects a second identical symbol and replaces the first symbol with the second for a subsequent game instance ('810 Patent, col. 8:1-21).
Asserted Claims
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶34).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Streaming Stacks" feature infringes these claims (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses numerous gaming machine titles sold by Defendant, including but not limited to "Solomons Riches," "Siberian Siren," "Firewolf," and "Legend of the White Buffalo" (Compl. ¶12, ¶13, ¶24, ¶25, ¶36, ¶37). The specific accused functionality common to these games is identified as the "Streaming Stacks" feature (Compl. ¶10, ¶22, ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the "Streaming Stacks" feature is a core component of the accused games that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶10, ¶22, ¶34). It further alleges that Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, and sells these games and that customers use the games, thereby also directly infringing (Compl. ¶11, ¶23, ¶35). The complaint does not provide technical details on the operation of the "Streaming Stacks" feature beyond its name.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations.
’869 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A gaming machine comprising: a processor configured to execute a game displaying a matrix of symbol containing elements... | Defendant's accused gaming machines are processor-based systems that execute games displaying a matrix of symbols (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 4:13-24 |
| ...at least one column of said matrix comprising a portion of a simulated rotatable reel of a plurality of said symbol containing elements... | The accused games utilize simulated rotatable reels, a portion of which is displayed in the game matrix (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 4:15-21 |
| ...said simulated rotatable reel including at least one section in which a consecutive run of three or more of said symbol containing elements is populated by an identical symbol... | The complaint alleges that the "Streaming Stacks" feature embodies a run of consecutive identical symbols on a reel (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 4:34-47 |
| ...and said identical symbol is randomly selected anew for each play of said game... | The complaint alleges that the "Streaming Stacks" feature embodies this element, though it does not provide specific facts on the selection mechanism (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10 | col. 4:48-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: A central question will be whether the "Streaming Stacks" feature's identical symbol is "randomly selected anew for each play," as required by claim 1. The complaint provides no evidence on this point, making it a likely area of dispute requiring discovery into the accused products' source code and design documents.
- Scope Question: Does the accused "Streaming Stacks" feature meet the "run of three or more" limitation? While the name suggests stacked symbols, the complaint does not specify the length of the runs in the accused games.
’540 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...a processor configured to execute a game... a simulated rotatable reel including at least one section in which a consecutive run of two or more of said symbol containing elements is populated by a first identical symbol; wherein said first identical symbol is used for a first play of said game... | The complaint alleges that the "Streaming Stacks" feature includes runs of identical symbols used in a game play (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 8:1-6 |
| ...wherein a second identical symbol is randomly selected... | The complaint alleges infringement of this element but does not specify how the accused feature performs this selection (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 8:7-8 |
| ...and wherein the first identical symbol is replaced by the second identical symbol in said consecutive run... said second identical symbol being used for a second play of said game. | The complaint alleges the "Streaming Stacks" feature performs this replacement function, but provides no facts detailing a "replacement" mechanism between a "first play" and a "second play" (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 8:9-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The primary point of contention will be factual: does the "Streaming Stacks" feature actually replace a first symbol with a second symbol in the reel data between distinct game plays? The claim requires a specific temporal sequence (first play -> replace -> second play) that may not be present in the accused feature, which could simply select a new stack for each spin independently.
- Scope Question: What constitutes a "first play" versus a "second play" will be a critical issue. The parties may dispute whether this refers to consecutive handle pulls by a single player, a main game vs. a feature game, or some other sequence of events.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '869 Patent
- The Term: "randomly selected anew for each play of said game"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the inventive concept of the '869 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused "Streaming Stacks" feature selects its stacked symbol in a way that meets this "anew for each play" requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the stacked symbol is predetermined or cycles through a fixed list, it may not be "randomly selected anew."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the selection is from a "sub-set of the set of symbols," which could be interpreted broadly to mean any random selection process from a defined pool ('869 Patent, col. 4:59-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent analogizes the selection to a "notional rotation of an 'inner reel' ... [which] 'com[es] to rest' determines which symbol will populate the run" ('869 Patent, col. 4:52-58). A defendant may argue this implies a specific type of simulation of a physical process, not just any random number generation.
For the '540 Patent
- The Term: "the first identical symbol is replaced by the second identical symbol"
- Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the '540 Patent from its parent and is central to infringement. The case may turn on whether the accused feature performs an actual "replacement" within the reel's data structure or simply selects a new stacked symbol for a new spin without reference to the prior spin's symbol.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "replaced" does not require overwriting data at a specific memory address, but can be read more functionally to mean that the symbol appearing in one game is different from the symbol appearing in the next game according to the claimed method. The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism of replacement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "replaced" implies an antecedent state (the first symbol populating the run) that is actively changed to a subsequent state (the second symbol populating the same run). A defendant could argue this requires more than just two independent game spins that happen to have different stacked symbols, but rather a direct, causal link where the second state is a modification of the first.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. It asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the patents "At least upon the filing of this Complaint" and knew its games were especially adapted for infringement and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶9, ¶21, ¶33). It further alleges that Defendant's customers' use of the games constitutes direct infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶23, ¶35).
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not use the word "willful." However, it requests damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which is the statutory basis for enhanced damages, often awarded for willful infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶G). The allegations of knowledge are tied to the date of the complaint's filing, suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary evidentiary question will be one of operational mechanics: Does the accused "Streaming Stacks" feature function as required by the specific claims? For the '869 patent, does it select a stacked symbol "anew for each play"? For the '540 and '810 patents, does it perform a specific "replacement" of a first symbol with a second symbol between a "first play" and a "second play," or does it merely select a new stack for each spin independently?
- A core issue will be one of claim interpretation: How will the court construe the temporal and procedural limitations in the '540 and '810 patents, such as "first play," "second play," and "replace"? The viability of the infringement claims against a feature named "Streaming Stacks" may depend on whether these terms require a direct modification of the reel state between spins or can be read more broadly to cover sequential, independent spins.
- A third question relates to the sufficiency of the pleadings: Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations mapping the "Streaming Stacks" feature to each claim element, an early point of contention may be a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the pleading standards established by Iqbal and Twombly.