DCT

2:24-cv-00993

Evolution Malta Ltd v. Light & Wonder Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Evolution Malta Limited, et al. (Malta)
- Defendant: Light & Wonder, Inc., et al. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sidley Austin LLP; Spencer Fane LLP
Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00993, D. Nev., 04/10/2025
Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants' residence and incorporation in Nevada.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s casino roulette games—RouletteX, PowerX, and 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette—infringe patents related to a hybrid live and electronic roulette game that features randomly-assigned payout multipliers.
Technical Context: The technology enhances traditional casino roulette by using a computer processor to randomly select certain outcomes for significantly increased payouts, aiming to increase player engagement by merging the trust of a physical game with the excitement of electronic jackpots.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the dispute arises from a failed partnership, where Defendants were given access to Plaintiff’s confidential information and patents under an NDA and a subsequent agreement to develop a land-based version of Plaintiff's "Lightning Roulette" game. Plaintiff alleges Defendants used this information to develop their own "copycat" products. The current filing is a First Amended Complaint, filed after the court granted a motion to dismiss a prior version and granted Plaintiff leave to re-assert its infringement claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-02-05	Priority Date for ’024, ’014, and ’371 Patents
2020-02-18	Parties agree to Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
2020-04-21	U.S. Patent No. 10,629,024 (’024) is issued
2021-03-08	Parties enter into a Heads of Terms agreement
2021-03-29	Parties enter into a formal Agreement
2021-05-18	U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014 (’014) is issued
2021-08-01	Defendant allegedly terminates agreement; Plaintiff learns of RouletteX
2022-02-28	Plaintiff sends first notice letter regarding infringement by RouletteX
2023-01-01	Defendant releases PowerX game (approximate date)
2023-09-12	U.S. Patent No. 11,756,371 (’371) is issued
2024-04-24	Plaintiff sends second notice letter
2025-01-31	Defendant launches 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette (no later than)
2025-03-14	Plaintiff sends third notice letter
2025-04-10	First Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,629,024 - Systems, Methods, and Media for Implementing Internet-Based Wagering (issued April 21, 2020)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that traditional wagering requires physical travel to a casino, while existing internet-based games are "simply computer-generated interfaces that do not replicate in any way a real environment" (’024 Patent, col. 1:19-22).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a hybrid wagering system that enhances a traditional roulette game. It uses a hardware processor to receive electronic bets from multiple players on the outcome of a physical roulette wheel spin. The core innovation is that after the wheel is spun but before the ball lands, the processor "randomly select[s] a first selected position" to receive a "first payout" that is "higher than the second payout" for other positions (’024 Patent, col. 8:24-32). This creates a new game mechanic that blends the authenticity of a live game with the excitement of random, high-value multipliers.
Technical Importance: The technology created a new category of roulette game that increased player excitement and engagement by introducing unpredictable, high-payout events into a conventional, well-understood game format (Compl. ¶¶70-71).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system), 8 (a method), and 15 (a non-transitory medium), along with various dependent claims (Compl. ¶137).
The essential elements of independent system claim 1 include:
- A roulette wheel and a ball.
- A hardware processor configured to:
  - Receive bet information from multiple player devices for different positions on the wheel.
  - Determine that the wheel and ball have been spun.
  - Randomly select a position on the wheel to receive a special payout prior to the ball landing.
  - Determine a first, higher payout for the randomly selected position and a second, standard payout for other positions.
  - Determine where the ball has landed and indicate the payout for the winning player(s).
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶137).

U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014 - Systems, Methods, and Media for Implementing Internet-Based Wagering (issued May 18, 2021)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’024 Patent, this patent addresses the same challenge of making remote wagering more engaging and akin to a real casino experience (’014 Patent, col. 1:12-25).
The Patented Solution: This patent further specifies the system's implementation by focusing on the user-facing software components. The claims explicitly require the hardware processor to "generate a first graphical user interface for presentation on a first player device" and a second GUI for a second player, and to "receive first bet information... via the first graphical user interface" (’014 Patent, col. 8:15-27). This distinguishes the invention by claiming the specific mechanism for remote player interaction.
Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a technical framework for a scalable, multi-player remote gaming experience by defining the role of the graphical user interface as the specific portal for player betting activity (Compl. ¶¶83-84).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system), 9 (a method), and 17 (a non-transitory medium), along with various dependent claims (Compl. ¶160).
The essential elements of independent system claim 1 include:
- A roulette wheel and a ball.
- At least one hardware processor configured to:
  - Generate distinct graphical user interfaces for a first and second player.
  - Receive bet information from each player via their respective graphical user interface.
  - Perform the core functions of determining the wheel has been spun, randomly selecting a position for a higher payout prior to the ball landing, determining payouts, and indicating the result.
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶160).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,756,371 (issued September 12, 2023)

Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’014 Patent, the ’371 patent further refines the claims around the novel payout structure. It addresses the same problem of enhancing the online roulette experience. The claimed solution is a system where the processor determines a "first increased payout" for a randomly selected position that is explicitly defined as being "greater than a first non-selected payout," codifying the core economic mechanic of the multiplier feature (’371 Patent, col. 8:25-41).
Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 (system), 11 (method), and 21 (non-transitory medium), among others (Compl. ¶184).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses L&W’s RouletteX, PowerX, and 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette systems, which allegedly use a multiplier feature to create increased payouts for certain numbers, of infringement (Compl. ¶184).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s casino gaming systems named RouletteX, PowerX, and 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette (Compl. ¶¶34, 40, 43).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "copycat" roulette games that incorporate the core features of Plaintiff’s "Lightning Roulette" (Compl. ¶¶34, 39).
The alleged functionality includes software that, for each spin, "randomly selects up to five roulette numbers and assigns multipliers from 50x to 500x to those randomly selected numbers" (Compl. ¶35). If the ball lands on one of these numbers, the player is paid at the multiplied rate (Compl. ¶35). A promotional image shows the accused RouletteX game installed with multiple player terminals at the Four Winds Casino (Compl. p. 41).
The complaint alleges these products are commercially significant, quoting Defendant’s Senior Vice President who described RouletteX as "a very big product for [L&W]" and "number one product right now" (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,629,024 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a roulette wheel;	The RouletteX and 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette systems comprise a physical roulette wheel.	¶140	col. 3:56-59
a hardware processor configured to: receive first bet information for a first bet from a first player device...	The accused systems comprise a hardware processor that receives bet information from player terminals or devices.	¶143	col. 8:16-20
...randomly select a first selected position on the roulette wheel for the spin of the roulette wheel prior to the ball falling into a position...	The accused systems’ processor is configured to randomly select numbers to receive multipliers after a spin begins but before the ball lands.	¶146	col. 8:24-28
...determine a first payout for first position and a second payout for the second position... wherein the first payout is higher...	The accused systems’ processor determines a higher, multiplied payout for the selected numbers and a standard payout for non-selected numbers.	¶147	col. 8:29-32
...indicating that the first player is to be paid at the first payout for the spin of the roulette wheel.	The accused systems’ processor indicates that a winning player who bet on a selected number is to be paid at the higher, multiplied payout.	¶149	col. 8:35-36

11,011,014 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
...at least one hardware processor collectively configured to: generate a first graphical user interface for presentation...	The accused systems’ processor generates a graphical user interface for presentation on each player's terminal or device.	¶166	col. 8:15-18
...receive first bet information for a first bet on a spin of the roulette wheel via the first graphical user interface...	The accused systems’ processor receives bet information from players through interactions with the graphical user interface.	¶168	col. 8:22-27
...randomly select a first selected position on the roulette wheel... prior to the ball falling into an outcome position...	The accused systems’ processor is configured to randomly select numbers for multipliers after the spin has commenced but before the outcome.	¶171	col. 8:43-48
...determine a first payout for the first single position... wherein the first payout is higher than the second payout;	The accused systems’ processor determines a multiplied payout for a selected number that is higher than the standard payout for other numbers.	¶172	col. 8:51-55

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A principal dispute may center on the timing and nature of the random selection. Do the accused systems "randomly select a... position... prior to the ball falling" as required by the claims? The defense may argue its selection algorithm or the timing of its execution differs meaningfully from what is claimed and described in the specification.
Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on how the accused systems technically determine payouts. Do they "determine a first payout... and a second payout" where one is higher, as claimed, or do they use a different logic, such as applying a multiplier to a single base payout, which could be argued as a technical distinction? For the ’014 patent, a question is whether bets are received "via" the GUI in the specific manner required by the claim, or if the GUI merely displays information while a separate backend process handles the bet reception.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "randomly select"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the invention. Whether the defendant's method of choosing numbers for multipliers infringes will depend heavily on the construed scope of "randomly." The dispute will likely involve whether the defendant's specific algorithm, which may be pseudo-random, falls within this scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that "pseudo-random functions can be used to approximate random functions and thereby select pseudo-random numbers, which can be considered to be random numbers" (’024 Patent, col. 4:61-65). Plaintiff will likely use this to argue for a broad construction that includes predictable but seemingly random algorithms.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term, in the context of distinguishing over prior art during prosecution, took on a more specific meaning tied to a particular type of non-obvious selection process not practiced by the accused systems (Compl. ¶82).
The Term: "prior to the ball falling into a position"
- Context and Importance: The timing of the random selection is a critical limitation that distinguishes the invention from simply having a random outcome. Infringement depends on the accused system performing the selection within this specific time window—after the spin starts but before the result is determined.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's process flowchart shows the "Randomly Select" step (210) occurring after "Wheel and Ball Spun" (206) and "Close Bets" (208), suggesting a clear, discrete phase of operation before the ball drop is detected (’024 Patent, FIG. 2).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The defense could argue that this phrase implies an instantaneous event or a very narrow time window that its systems do not meet, perhaps by arguing their selection is determined concurrently with other processes rather than in a distinct, prior step.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "intentionally instructed... casinos, game operators, and players, to use" the accused products through advertising, promotion at trade shows, and user manuals (Compl. ¶¶154, 178, 201). It also alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) by supplying the infringing systems from the U.S. for use in Europe and Asia (Compl. ¶¶155, 179, 202).
Willful Infringement: The complaint lays a detailed foundation for willfulness. It alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patents and the technology through a prior business relationship and partnership agreement (Compl. ¶¶27-31). It further alleges that Plaintiff sent multiple notice letters, both pre-suit and during the litigation, specifically identifying the patents and the infringing products (Compl. ¶¶39, 41, 152, 177). The allegation that Defendant used Plaintiff's own technology as a "blueprint" for a "copycat game" is central to the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶151).

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

A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the phrase "randomly select a... position... prior to the ball falling," which defines the invention's critical timing and function, be construed to read on the specific algorithms and system architecture used in Defendant's accused roulette games?
A key evidentiary question will be one of intent and knowledge: what will the evidence show regarding Defendant's state of mind? The allegations of a breached partnership and use of confidential "math files" (Compl. ¶¶28, 116) elevate this beyond a typical infringement dispute, making the evidence of what Defendant knew from its prior relationship with Plaintiff critical to the claims of willfulness and trade secret misappropriation.
A central technical question will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused software function in the specific sequence claimed—e.g., "determin[ing] a first payout... and a second payout" and comparing them—or does it achieve a similar result through a different, non-infringing technical method?