DCT
2:14-cv-01483
Konami Gaming Inc v. PTT LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Konami Gaming, Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: PTT, LLC d/b/a High 5 Games (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:14-cv-01483, D. Nev., 09/12/2014
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant offers its products for sale in the district, including at gaming industry conferences in Las Vegas, transacts business with local distributors, and places its products into a stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and used by residents of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous slot machine games developed by Defendant, which include a "Super Stack" feature, infringe four of its patents related to methods for creating runs of identical, stacked symbols on virtual slot machine reels.
- Technical Context: The technology involves a popular slot machine game mechanic where groups of consecutive symbols on a reel are populated with the same symbol for a given spin, increasing player excitement and the potential for large, multi-line winning outcomes.
- Key Procedural History: The four patents-in-suit constitute a single family, with the ’540, ’810, and ’955 patents being continuations of the application that issued as the parent ’869 patent. The patents are subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit their effective term to that of the '869 patent. The complaint appears to be the first notice of infringement provided to the Defendant.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-02-14 | Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patent Family (AU) |
| 2012-01-17 | U.S. Patent No. 8,096,869 Issues |
| 2013-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,366,540 Issues |
| 2013-12-31 | U.S. Patent No. 8,616,955 Issues |
| 2014-01-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,622,810 Issues |
| 2014-09-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,096,869 - "Gaming Machines with Runs of Consecutive Identical Symbols," Issued January 17, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes conventional slot machines as typically arranging symbols on a reel so that adjoining elements are different, which can limit the novelty and excitement of the game (’869 Patent, col. 1:47-52). The patent seeks to create more stimulating variations on this traditional game mechanic (’869 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a gaming machine with simulated rotatable reels where, for a given spin, a "consecutive run" of three or more positions on at least one reel is populated with an identical symbol (’869 Patent, Abstract). Crucially, this identical symbol is randomly selected anew for each play of the game from a predefined subset of symbols, such as high-value "court cards," which are stored in a notional "inner reel" or look-up table (’869 Patent, col. 4:52-64). This creates a "stacked symbol" effect that changes with each spin.
- Technical Importance: This feature, commonly known as "stacked" or "super stacked" symbols, introduced a significant new element of volatility and player anticipation into slot machine design by increasing the chance of filling the screen with the same symbol for a large payout (’869 Patent, col. 5:14-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 19 (method) (Compl. ¶11).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
- A processor configured to execute a game on a gaming machine.
- A simulated rotatable reel that includes at least one section with "a consecutive run of three or more" symbol-containing elements.
- This run is "populated by an identical symbol."
- The identical symbol is "randomly selected anew for each play of said game."
- Independent Claim 19 claims a method for increasing the probability of a winning outcome by arranging a reel with a run of identical symbols, where the symbol is selected anew for each play by the "virtual rotation of said notional non-visible inner reel."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least" these claims, preserving the option to assert others (Compl. ¶11).
U.S. Patent No. 8,366,540 - "Gaming Machine with Runs of Consecutive Identical Symbols," Issued February 5, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with its parent patent, the '540 patent aims to enhance player engagement in slot machine games by moving beyond traditional reel design (’540 Patent, col. 1:15-46).
- The Patented Solution: This continuation patent builds on the "stacked symbol" concept by claiming a multi-stage process. The invention describes a game where a run of symbols is populated with a first identical symbol for a first play. For a second play of the game, a second identical symbol is randomly selected, and this second symbol replaces the first one in the consecutive run (’540 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-13). This allows the stacked symbol to be dynamically changed between plays.
- Technical Importance: This method provides a mechanism for ensuring the "stacked" symbol can change from one spin to the next, adding another layer of randomness to the feature.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 21 (method) (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
- A processor configured to execute a game where a reel has a "consecutive run of two or more" elements populated by a "first identical symbol."
- The "first identical symbol is 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... said second identical symbol being used for a second play of said game."
- Independent Claim 21 claims a method of performing these same steps: (a) arranging a reel with a run populated by a first symbol for a first play, (b) randomly selecting a second symbol, and (c) replacing the first with the second for a second play.
U.S. Patent No. 8,622,810 - "Gaming Machines with Replacement of Runs of Symbols Containing Identical Symbols with New Identical Symbols," Issued January 7, 2014
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, claims a method for replacing the identical symbols used in the "run" or "stack" between game instances. It describes a first game instance using a reel with a run of first identical symbols, followed by a second instance where a randomly selected second identical symbol replaces the first, with the game then proceeding with the newly populated reel (’810 Patent, Abstract; Claim 8).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶35).
- Accused Features: The "Super Stack" feature in Defendant's games (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Patent No. 8,616,955 - "Gaming machine with runs of symbols populated with identical symbols during spinning of reels," Issued December 31, 2013
- Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the visual presentation of the symbol-replacement feature. It claims a method where the symbols in the consecutive run are replaced with a new identical symbol while the reel is spinning. The invention also requires providing a visual indication to the player that this replacement is occurring, creating an anticipatory "reveal" moment during the spin (’955 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 (Compl. ¶47).
- Accused Features: The "Super Stack" feature in Defendant's games (Compl. ¶47).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses a wide range of specific slot machine game titles of infringement, including "Golden Goddess," "Black Widow," "Shadow of the Panther," "Might Panther," and "Jaguar Princess," among many others (Compl. ¶¶13-15, 25-27, 37-39, 49-51). The specific accused functionality is identified as the "Super Stack" feature (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell these games, and also provides them to manufacturers and casino operators (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). It further alleges that these games are operated by customers, for instance at the Paris Las Vegas Hotel and Casino (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide any technical description of how the accused "Super Stack" feature operates, instead relying on the feature's name and a blanket allegation of infringement.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide specific evidence mapping the accused products to the claim limitations. The following charts summarize the infringement theory as inferred from the allegations.
’869 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| said simulated rotatable reel including at least one section in which a consecutive run of three or more... elements is populated by an identical symbol | The "Super Stack" feature allegedly creates a stack of identical symbols on a reel. | ¶11 | col. 3:35-37 |
| said identical symbol is randomly selected anew for each play of said game | The symbol used in the "Super Stack" feature is allegedly chosen randomly for each spin. | ¶11 | col. 8:1-2 |
’540 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a consecutive run of two or more... elements is populated by a first identical symbol... said first identical symbol being used for a first play of said game | The "Super Stack" feature allegedly uses a specific stacked symbol for a given spin. | ¶23 | col. 8:1-5 |
| a second identical symbol is randomly selected... the first identical symbol is replaced by the second identical symbol... for a second play of said game | The symbol used in the "Super Stack" feature is allegedly replaced with a new randomly selected symbol for a subsequent spin. | ¶23 | col. 8:5-13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint follows a "bare bones" pleading style that names an accused feature (the "Super Stack") but provides no technical evidence of its operation. A central point of contention will be factual: can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence (e.g., source code analysis, machine inspection) demonstrating that the "Super Stack" feature actually performs the specific steps required by each asserted claim across the four patents?
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for the '955 patent will raise the specific technical question of whether the accused games not only replace the stacked symbol but do so during the spin and provide a visual indication to the player of this event, as claimed. Likewise, the analysis for the '540 and '810 patents will focus on whether the stacked symbol is replaced between distinct plays of the game.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "randomly selected"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the core claims of the asserted patents (e.g., '869 Patent, Claim 1) and is fundamental to the inventive concept of a dynamic, unpredictable stacked symbol. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will be critical to infringement; if Defendant's method for choosing the "Super Stack" symbol is determined not to be "randomly selected anew for each play," its defense against the '869 patent and others would be significantly strengthened.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a standard industry interpretation, stating a "game controller... pre-selects at random" a win element, which could support construing "randomly" to include the pseudo-random number generation common in gaming machines (’869 Patent, col. 4:26-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes the selection mechanism as a notional "inner reel" that functions as a "look-up table" (’869 Patent, col. 4:54-56). This language could be used to argue for a more structured, and therefore less than fully "random," selection process that a defendant might argue its own system does not practice.
The Term: "consecutive run"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the physical "stack" of symbols on the reel. The scope of this term is essential for determining if the accused feature's structure meets the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves provide some scope, requiring a run of "three or more" ('869 patent) or "two or more" ('540 patent) elements. This suggests the exact number is not rigidly fixed across the invention, supporting a more general interpretation of an uninterrupted sequence of identical symbols.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates this concept as physically adjacent symbol positions on a reel strip (e.g., ’869 Patent, Fig. 2). A defendant could potentially argue that this requires a specific data structure where symbols are hard-coded into adjacent reel positions, and that a feature achieving the same visual effect through a different mechanism (such as a temporary symbol overlay) would not read on the term.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. The factual basis alleged is that Defendant sells its games to manufacturers, distributors, and casino operators with the knowledge that they will be used by end-users in an infringing manner and that the games are especially adapted for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶¶10, 22, 34, 46).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it states that "At least upon the filing of this Complaint, Defendant is inducing... with knowledge of the ['XXX] patent and its claims" (e.g., Compl. ¶10). This language seeks to establish a basis for post-filing knowledge and potential enhanced damages for any infringement that occurs after the complaint was served.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- An Evidentiary Question of Operation: Given the notice-pleading style of the complaint, the primary issue is whether discovery will yield factual evidence to support Konami's claims. The case will depend on whether the technical operation of High 5 Games' "Super Stack" feature can be proven to map to the specific limitations of each of the four distinct patents-in-suit.
- A Definitional Question of Randomness: A central legal dispute will likely be the construction of the term "randomly selected anew for each play." The outcome may hinge on whether the court adopts a broad, industry-standard definition of "random" or a narrower one based on the patent's description of a "look-up table," and whether the accused system's algorithm falls within that scope.
- A Question of Infringement Differentiation: For Konami to prevail on all patents, it must prove more than a general "stacked symbol" feature. A key question will be whether it can show that the accused games practice the specific, additional features of the continuation patents, namely the replacement of symbols between plays ('540 and '810 patents) and the visual replacement during a spin ('955 patent).