DCT

2:15-cv-00473

IGT v. Aristocrat Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:15-cv-00473, D. Nev., 12/21/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada as Defendant Aristocrat regularly transacts business in the district, including the sale, lease, and operation of gaming machines.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic slot machines infringe twenty-one patents related to various gaming machine features, including bonus games, reel displays, and user interface elements.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on features within electronic gaming machines (slot machines), a highly competitive and technologically driven sector of the global entertainment and casino industry.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a Revised Second Amended Complaint, filed pursuant to a court order that dismissed four of Plaintiff's counts seeking declaratory judgment of assignor estoppel. The complaint also alleges that a key inventor, Joe Kaminkow, worked for Plaintiff IGT, where he invented on several of the patents-in-suit, before resigning and joining Defendant Aristocrat, where he allegedly led the development of the accused products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-06-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,375,570
1999-01-01 Joe Kaminkow begins employment at IGT
2000-04-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,394,902
2002-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,375,570 Issues
2002-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,394,902 Issues
2002-10-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,913,532
2003-04-14 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,131,908
2004-03-09 U.S. Patent No. 6,702,675 Issues
2005-04-12 U.S. Patent No. D503,951 Issues
2005-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 6,913,532 Issues
2005-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,932,701 Issues
2006-03-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,513,827
2006-11-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,131,908 Issues
2007-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,238,110 Issues
2007-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,303,469 Issues
2008-02-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,331,867 Issues
2008-06-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,384,334 Issues
2009-01-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,481,709 Issues
2009-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,513,827 Issues
2011-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,927,206 Issues
2011-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,988,549 Issues
2012-01-01 Joe Kaminkow resigns from IGT
2012-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,246,444 Issues
2013-01-01 Joe Kaminkow joins Aristocrat
2013-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,475,261 Issues
2013-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,506,380 Issues
2013-09-01 Aristocrat debuts BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES game
2014-06-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,753,189 Issues
2014-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,801,519 Issues
2015-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,105,156 Issues
2015-12-21 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,131,908 - "Gaming Device Having a Weighted Probability for Selecting a Bonus Game," issued November 7, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In gaming machines that offer players a choice between multiple bonus games, players may tire of the options and discontinue play if all games are selected with equal probability or if the selection process lacks variety (’908 Patent, col. 1:47-2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a gaming device that presents multiple bonus games and randomly selects one for the player based on a predetermined, weighted probability distribution ('908 Patent, col. 2:14-25). This allows the game designer to make some bonus games (e.g., those with higher potential payouts) appear less frequently than others, which can increase player excitement and engagement over time ('908 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided game designers with a tool to manage game volatility and player experience by controlling the frequency of different bonus events, rather than treating them as equally likely occurrences.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least one claim of the patent (Compl. ¶40). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following elements:
    • A base game operable upon a wager.
    • A plurality of different bonus games.
    • A probability associated with each bonus game.
    • An image associated with each bonus game.
    • A processor operable to display the images after a triggering event, select one bonus game based on the probabilities, display the image for the selected game, and provide the selected bonus game to the player.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,513,827 - "Gaming Device with Multi-Purpose Reels," issued April 7, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional slot machines use spinning reels solely to determine game outcomes. This underutilizes the display area, as the reels perform no other function to entertain the player or highlight game events (’827 Patent, col. 2:38-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a gaming device where video reels serve a dual purpose. They function traditionally to display symbols and determine outcomes, but they are also used to create "exhibitions." This includes animating the reels or combining multiple adjacent reels into a single larger display area to show an animation, such as an animated character related to a winning combination ('827 Patent, col. 2:51-57; FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This technology integrated the core game mechanic (the reels) with bonus animations and visual events, creating a more cohesive and graphically rich player experience on the main game screen.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least one claim of the patent (Compl. ¶44). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following elements:
    • A display device.
    • A processor.
    • A plurality of video reels displayed at positions on the display device.
    • An exhibition controlled by the processor and displayed at the position of at least one video reel, adjacent to another video reel.
    • The exhibition informs the player that a game outcome has been reached.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,394,902 - "Gaming Device Having Different Sets of Primary and Secondary Reel Symbols," issued May 28, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses potential player confusion and regulatory issues that arise when a bonus game uses the same reel symbols as the primary game but with different probabilities of winning (’902 Patent, col. 2:1-14). The proposed solution is a gaming machine that uses a completely different set of symbols for the bonus game than for the primary game, which allows the bonus game to have a higher probability of winning and larger payouts without creating confusion ('902 Patent, col. 2:19-37).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES and THE BIG BANG THEORY slot machines are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 7,384,334 - "Gaming Device Having Different Sets of Primary and Secondary Reel Symbols," issued June 10, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the '902 Patent and similarly describes a gaming device with distinct sets of reel symbols for primary and secondary (bonus) games. The core inventive concept is that the bonus game has a higher probability of winning than the primary game because it uses fewer reel symbols, thereby creating fewer possible combinations and increasing player excitement (’334 Patent, col. 5:40-49).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES, TARZAN OF THE APES, and THE BIG BANG THEORY slot machines are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 8,753,189 - "Gaming Device Having Different Sets of Primary and Secondary Reel Symbols," issued June 17, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also part of the family including the '902 and '334 patents. It claims a gaming system where a processor controls the display of a primary game with a first set of symbols and, upon a triggering event, a secondary game with a different set of symbols (’189 Patent, Claim 1). The key distinction is that the secondary game has a higher average expected payout than the primary game, independent of the triggering event that initiated it ('189 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES, SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, TARZAN OF THE APES, and THE BIG BANG THEORY slot machines are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶56).

U.S. Design Patent No. D503,951 - "Gaming device having a display with multiple indicators," issued April 12, 2005

  • Technology Synopsis: This is a design patent claiming the ornamental design for a gaming device display that includes a central wheel feature surrounded by multiple indicators. The design covers the specific visual appearance of the game interface as shown in the patent's figures (D’951 Patent, Figs. 1-19).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES, SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, and THE BIG BANG THEORY slot machines are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 6,375,570 - "Gaming Device Displaying an Exhibition for Replacing Video Reels," issued April 23, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a precursor to the '827 patent, describing a gaming device that uses its video reels for multiple purposes. The invention focuses on replacing at least one video reel with an "exhibition" (animation) that informs the player they have reached a specific game outcome, such as triggering a bonus round (’570 Patent, col. 9:20-29). The animation is displayed in the same area previously occupied by one or more reels.
  • Asserted Claims: At least one claim (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES, THE ROLLING STONES, THE BIG BANG THEORY, and BRITNEY SPEARS slot machines are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶64).

For brevity, the remaining 14 patents-in-suit are not individually synopsized.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names a number of electronic gaming machines (slot machines) developed, manufactured, and sold by Aristocrat (Compl. ¶¶36, 38, 40, 44, etc.). Prominently featured accused products include those based on major media franchises, such as BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES, THE WALKING DEAD, SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, THE BIG BANG THEORY, and BRITNEY SPEARS (Compl. ¶¶38, 40).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are modern video slot machines featuring complex game play, bonus rounds, and high-production-value graphics and sound based on their licensed themes (Compl. ¶¶36-38). The complaint strongly implies that the accused functionality was developed under the direction of Joe Kaminkow, a former IGT executive and named inventor on several patents-in-suit, after he was hired by Aristocrat (Compl. ¶¶33-35). This narrative suggests the accused products were commercially significant for Aristocrat and were developed with knowledge of IGT's patented technology (Compl. ¶36). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. The infringement allegations are pleaded generally, stating that the manufacture, use, or sale of named product lines infringes "at least one claim" of the respective patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶40, 44). The complaint does not map specific features of the accused products to the elements of any asserted patent claim.

'908 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Narrative Theory: The complaint alleges that Aristocrat's slot machines, including BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES and THE BIG BANG THEORY, infringe the '908 Patent (Compl. ¶40). The implicit theory is that these games offer players a selection of bonus games, and that the machine selects which bonus game to offer based on a weighted probability scheme as claimed in the patent.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: What evidence demonstrates that the accused games' bonus selection features operate using the specific "probability associated with each of said bonus games" as required by the claims? The complaint provides no technical details on how the accused bonus games are triggered or selected.
    • Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused products' method for presenting bonus games falls within the scope of "select[ing] one of said bonus games based on the probabilities," particularly if Aristocrat argues its selection mechanism is functionally different from that disclosed in the patent.

'827 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Narrative Theory: The complaint alleges that slot machines including BATMAN CLASSIC TV SERIES and BRITNEY SPEARS infringe the '827 Patent (Compl. ¶44). The implied theory is that these games feature animations or other visual events that are displayed in the same screen area as the video reels, thereby using the reels for the "multi-purpose" function of both gameplay and "exhibition" as claimed.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: Does the software in the accused games technically "replace" a video reel with an "exhibition," as required by the claims, or does it use a graphical overlay or other technique that might be argued as distinct from the claimed method?
    • Scope Question: A central issue may be the construction of the term "exhibition." The patent defines it broadly, but Aristocrat may argue that its bonus animations do not serve the specific claim function of "inform[ing] a player... that one of said plurality of game outcomes has been reached."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim term disputes. However, based on the technology, certain terms are likely to be central to the case.

For the '908 Patent and related patents:

  • The Term: "probability associated with each of said bonus games" (from Claim 1 of '908 Patent).
  • Context and Importance: The core of the alleged invention is the use of non-uniform probabilities for selecting a bonus game. The entire infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products are shown to use such a system and whether that system meets the definition of "probability" as understood in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is not tied to a single method of implementing the probabilities, stating that the game "selects for the player one of three bonus games contained in the bonus scheme" and that the "probability distribution may be any distribution that suits the... themes" ('908 Patent, col. 2:32-34; col. 2:55-57). This may support a broad reading covering various algorithmic approaches.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiment describes a "predetermined" probability distribution (e.g., 25%, 40%, 35%) ('908 Patent, col. 2:55-58). A defendant might argue this language limits the claims to fixed, pre-programmed probabilities, potentially excluding systems where probabilities might change dynamically.

For the '827 Patent and related patents:

  • The Term: "exhibition... which replaces at least one of said video reels" (from Claim 1 of '827 Patent).
  • Context and Importance: Infringement hinges on whether the animations in the accused games functionally "replace" the video reels. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its animations are graphical overlays that appear on top of, but do not technically "replace," the underlying reel structure in the game's software.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept broadly, stating the computer "combines the middle three reels into a display area and displays an exhibition such as an animated elephant" ('827 Patent, col. 3:12-15). This functional description could be argued to cover any method that achieves the visual effect of the exhibition appearing in the reels' space.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention states the exhibition is for "replacing video reels" ('827 Patent, Abstract). A defendant could argue this implies a specific software operation where the data/object for the reel is swapped out for the data/object for the animation, as opposed to merely being layered on top. Figure 5, for instance, shows the middle three reels having disappeared entirely, with the exhibition appearing in their place.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for several patents asserted in later counts, but not for the lead '908 and '827 patents. For example, for U.S. Patent No. 7,238,110, the complaint alleges Aristocrat induces infringement by "providing the '’110 accused products and promoting and encouraging their operation and use, with knowledge that such operation and use infringes" (Compl. ¶114). The basis for knowledge is alleged to be "at least as of December 9, 2015" (Compl. ¶111).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be evidentiary: Given the complaint's general allegations, the case will likely focus on the factual evidence produced during discovery. Can IGT demonstrate through source code analysis or expert testimony that the accused slot machines' bonus features technically operate in the specific manner required by the patent claims, such as using weighted probabilities or functionally replacing reel displays?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: The dispute may turn on the construction of fundamental terms like "probability" and "replaces." Can IGT convince the court that these terms should be interpreted broadly enough to cover the specific software architecture and methods used in Aristocrat's modern, graphically intensive gaming machines?
  • A significant narrative question will be the role of the inventor: The complaint extensively details the history of inventor Joe Kaminkow moving from IGT to Aristocrat. A key question is how this narrative of alleged knowledge transfer will influence the proceedings, even in the absence of a formal willfulness claim.