DCT
2:16-cv-00722
Inag Inc v. Richar LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: INAG, Inc. (Nevada) and Mark H. Jones and Sheryle L. Jones as Trustees of the Mark Hamilton Jones and Sheryle Lynn Jones Family Trust U/A/D November 7, 2013
- Defendant: Richar, Inc. (Oklahoma)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00722, D. Nev., 06/27/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada as Defendant Richar, Inc. has its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Richer Roulette" table game infringes a patent related to a mechanical card shuffling and selection device used for games of chance.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to casino gaming equipment, specifically devices that use a set of cards on a spinning turntable to create a random outcome, offering an alternative to traditional roulette wheels or dice.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the patent-in-suit via a letter on February 3, 2016, and that Defendant’s counsel responded on February 26, 2016, denying infringement. An ex parte reexamination certificate for the patent-in-suit was later issued, confirming the patentability of the asserted method claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-08-29 | ’853 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-03-02 | ’853 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-02-03 | Plaintiffs' counsel notifies Defendant of ’853 Patent |
| 2016-02-26 | Defendant's counsel denies infringement |
| 2016-06-27 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-03-02 | ’853 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issue Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,669,853 - “Card Shuffling Machine,” Issued March 2, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a desire within the gaming industry to develop new randomizing devices for games of chance, particularly those utilizing playing cards, which may be subject to less restrictive regulations in some jurisdictions compared to dice or traditional roulette wheels (’853 Patent, col. 2:38-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a machine comprising a stationary base and a turntable that can be spun freely on a vertical axis. The turntable holds a series of cards, each in its own tray. A fixed "detent" interacts with a series of dividers on the rotating turntable, applying a "pulsating resistance" that progressively slows the turntable until it stops at a random position, thereby singulating one card to determine the game's outcome (’853 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for generating a random outcome for a casino game that combines the visual experience of a spinning wheel with the use of playing cards as the randomizing medium (’853 Patent, col. 2:7-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent method Claim 16 (Compl. ¶¶14, 24).
- The essential steps of independent Claim 16 include:
- providing a stationary base and a moveable turntable with a plurality of trays for holding cards
- providing a set of cards and disposing one in each tray
- providing a bet selection region and making a forecast on the game's outcome
- accelerating the turntable to a maximum rotating speed
- progressively slowing the free rotating turntable
- stopping the turntable at a random angular position
- removing at least one card from its tray in response to the random stopping position
- announcing a game decision based on the indicia of the removed card
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is a table game named “Richer Roulette” (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Richer Roulette includes a "rotatable shuffler that includes a plurality of removable numbered cards disposed in slots around a rotating turntable" (Compl. ¶13). Defendant is alleged to manufacture, sell, and offer for sale the game to purchasers, such as casinos, for use in providing gambling services (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).
- The complaint alleges Defendant has assisted casinos with the installation and use of Richer Roulette and has produced promotional videos illustrating its operation (Compl. ¶¶15-16). For example, the complaint alleges that videos uploaded to YouTube illustrate the operation of the Richer Roulette game (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’853 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| forming a plurality of trays in the turntable that are equally circumferentially spaced apart one from another about the central axis | The accused "Richer Roulette" game allegedly includes "a plurality of removable numbered cards disposed in slots around a rotating turntable." | ¶13 | col. 9:17-20 |
| accelerating the turntable to a maximum rotating speed with the cards retained in their respective trays | The complaint alleges that the method recited in Claim 16 is practiced when the "Richer Roulette" game is operated, as allegedly shown in videos produced by the Defendant. | ¶¶14, 17, 24 | col. 9:28-32 |
| progressively slowing the free rotating turntable | The complaint alleges that operating the Richer Roulette game involves practicing the method of Claim 16, which includes this step. | ¶¶14, 24 | col. 10:3 |
| stopping the turntable at a random angular position relative to the base | The complaint alleges that the method of Claim 16 is practiced in its entirety, which requires the turntable to stop at a random position. | ¶¶14, 24 | col. 10:4-5 |
| removing at least one card from its respective tray in response to the random angular position of the turntable | The cards in the accused device are described as "removable," and the operation of the game is alleged to follow the claimed method. | ¶¶13, 24 | col. 10:6-9 |
| announcing a game decision based on the indicia of the at least one card removed from its tray | The accused product is a "table game" used for "gambling relating services," which implies a game decision is announced based on the outcome. | ¶¶12, 14, 24 | col. 10:10-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused game practices the step of "progressively slowing the free rotating turntable." A key technical question will be what mechanism, if any, the Richer Roulette device uses to slow its turntable. The patent specification describes a specific "detent" mechanism that applies a "pulsating resistance" (’853 Patent, col. 4:9-13). The complaint does not specify whether the accused product contains a similar structure or achieves this function through other means.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether "progressively slowing" requires an active mechanical interference as described in the patent's preferred embodiment, or if it could be interpreted more broadly to cover slowing from natural forces like friction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "progressively slowing"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented method of achieving a random outcome. The infringement analysis for Claim 16 will depend heavily on whether the operation of the accused Richer Roulette device can be shown to perform this specific step. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification links it to a particular mechanical action not explicitly recited in the claim itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not recite a specific mechanism for the slowing, only the functional result. A party could argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase covers any gradual reduction in the turntable's speed, regardless of cause.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links this function to a specific structure, stating that the "detent 30 functions to apply a pulsating resistance to the free rotation of the turntable 14 and thereby progressively slow the turntable to a stopped condition" (’853 Patent, col. 4:9-13). This description may be used to argue that the term implies an active slowing mechanism that applies intermittent resistance, rather than passive slowing from friction alone.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides purchasers with "instructions for the operation of Richer Roulette which, when followed, cause the purchasers to practice the method recited in at least Claim 16" (Compl. ¶26). It further alleges that Defendant has "worked with other casinos to install, use and encourage use of Richer Roulette" (Compl. ¶16).
- Willful Infringement: While not explicitly pleading "willfulness," the complaint alleges facts that may support an "exceptional case" finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’853 Patent as of February 3, 2016, and continued its allegedly infringing activities after its own counsel denied infringement (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the following central questions:
- A core issue will be one of mechanistic function: Does the accused "Richer Roulette" game "progressively slow" its turntable through an active mechanism that applies a "pulsating resistance," as detailed in the ’853 Patent’s specification, or does it slow primarily due to natural friction? The answer will be critical for determining literal infringement of Claim 16.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of practice: Beyond the conclusory assertion that the accused method is performed, what specific evidence will Plaintiffs offer to demonstrate that users of the "Richer Roulette" game, following Defendant's instructions, perform each and every step of the claimed method, particularly the steps of "progressively slowing" and "stopping the turntable at a random angular position"?