DCT
2:25-cv-01699
Interblock Doo v. Merkur Gaming US LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Interblock d.o.o. (Slovenia) and Interblock USA, L.C. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Merkur Gaming US, LLC (Nevada) and Spintec Doo. (Slovenia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Schwartz Law, PLLC; Baker & Hostetler LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01699, D. Nev., 09/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant Merkur Gaming US, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company that resides in the district. Venue over Spintec Doo., a Slovenian company, is alleged to be proper for foreign defendants.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “Charisma” line of automated dice electronic table games infringes two patents related to player-interactive dice shaking mechanisms and methods for controlling dice movement.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated electronic table games (ETGs), a significant segment of the casino gaming industry that replaces human dealers with electro-mechanical systems to conduct games like craps and sic-bo.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patents. It notes that U.S. Patent No. RE46,738 is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,926,438, a fact that may be relevant for claim construction by incorporating the original patent’s prosecution history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-09-10 | ’738 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-02-27 | ’738 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-10-04 | ’025 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-05-10 | ’025 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-10-04 | Defendants announce strategic partnership |
| 2025-05-01 | Defendant Merkur secures Nevada manufacturing and distribution license (approx. date) |
| 2025-08-21 | Defendant Merkur announces appearance at 2025 Las Vegas G2E Expo |
| 2025-09-09 | Defendant Spintec promotes accused products on social media for G2E launch |
| 2025-09-10 | Complaint Filed |
| 2025-10-07 | Planned launch of accused products at Las Vegas G2E Expo |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,738 - Gaming Machine with Dice Shaking Unit Performing Dice Shaking Motions with Varying Amplitudes
- Patent Identification: RE46,738, “Gaming Machine with Dice Shaking Unit Performing Dice Shaking Motions with Varying Amplitudes,” issued February 27, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a need to improve upon conventional automated gaming machines, which may be limited in size and fail to provide a "superior operational sensation" for players (RE46,738 Patent, col. 2:60-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a gaming system with a central dice-shaking unit surrounded by player terminals. The system executes a two-stage shaking sequence: a controller initiates a "first shaking motion," and after a player at a designated terminal operates a device (e.g., a button), the controller initiates a "second shaking motion" that has a larger amplitude than the first. This sequence is intended to give a player the feeling of actively participating in the dice roll ('738 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-8).
- Technical Importance: The player-interactive, two-stage shaking process was designed to increase player engagement in automated table games by simulating the physical act of a player throwing the dice (Compl. ¶41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A gaming system comprising a dice movable unit with a shaking device, a plurality of game terminals with player operation devices, and a controller.
- The controller executes a process of: (a) receiving bet end signals, (b) transmitting a first shaking motion start signal, (c) transmitting a permission signal to a predetermined terminal, (d) receiving an operation signal from that terminal, and (e) transmitting a second shaking motion start signal.
- The dice movable unit performs the first shaking motion in response to the first signal and then performs the second shaking motion in response to the second signal, where the second shaking motion has an amplitude larger than the first.
U.S. Patent No. 11,325,025 - Methods for Controlling Movement of a Dice
- Patent Identification: 11,325,025, “Methods for Controlling Movement of a Dice,” issued May 10, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies potential issues with existing automated dice systems, including "durability issues, introduce regulatory concerns regarding the randomness of the mechanical assembly, and may provide a user experience that can be improved upon" (’025 Patent, col. 1:27-31).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method for controlling a dice-throwing mechanism using a drive, such as a voice coil motor (’025 Patent, col. 5:21-23). The system receives data from a user-controlled input device and, in response, causes a platform holding the dice to move upward with a first force, then downward for a set distance or time, and then upward again with a second force. The final height of the dice throw is controlled by selecting among these forces, distances, or time periods to achieve a precise and repeatable, yet seemingly random, throw (’025 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:2-20).
- Technical Importance: This invention focuses on the precision and reliability of the dice-throwing mechanism by using a multi-force actuation sequence, aiming to improve randomness and durability over simpler mechanical systems (Compl. ¶46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶99).
- The essential elements of method claim 1 include:
- Receiving data at a drive mechanism from a user-controlled input device indicative of a height the dice should move upward.
- Causing a platform holding the dice to move upward with a first force.
- Causing the platform to move downward either a first distance or over a first period of time.
- Causing the platform to move upward with a second force.
- Wherein the height of the dice throw is controlled by selecting at least one of the first force, the first distance, the first period of time, or the second force.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendants’ "Charisma" line of automated dice games, including "Charisma Craps" and "Charisma Sic-Bo" (Compl. ¶¶16, 55).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are automated electronic table games (ETGs) that feature a "dice generator that automatically throws real dice in a clear enclosure" surrounded by player stations (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges the generator's platform moves "up and down many times, which shakes the dice, and ultimately make the dice jump by a higher amount, mimicking the dice being thrown" (Compl. ¶60, ¶97). A player uses a "shooter button" at a terminal to actuate the throw (Compl. ¶73, ¶102). The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of Plaintiff's and Defendants' respective craps ETGs (Compl. p. 5, Image). It alleges Defendants are marketing these products as "lower-cost alternatives" to Plaintiff's products and are planning a formal launch at the 2025 Las Vegas Global Gaming Expo (G2E) (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE46,738 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a dice movable unit having a plurality of dice and a shaking device that causes the plurality of dice to roll | The accused games include a dice generator containing dice and a shaking device that causes the dice to roll. The complaint provides an annotated diagram identifying the "Dice movable unit" and "Shaking device" (Compl. p. 17, Image). | ¶65 | col. 7:45-48 |
| a plurality of game terminals, each... having an operation device that a player can operate | The accused games include multiple player stations surrounding the dice generator, each with an operation device. | ¶67 | col. 7:10-13 |
| a controller that executes processing of: (a) receiving bet end signals from the betted terminals... | A controller receives signals indicating betting has ended, evidenced by on-screen messages such as "BETS ARE CLOSED NO MORE BETS! GOOD LUCK" (Compl. p. 19, Image). | ¶69 | col. 6:50-54 |
| (b) transmitting a first shaking motion start signal, which causes a first shaking motion... | The controller allegedly starts an initial shaking motion of the dice movable unit. | ¶71 | col. 6:54-57 |
| (c) transmitting a permission signal, which permits an operation by the operation device of a predetermined game terminal... | The controller transmits a signal that permits a player to actuate a "shooter button" to roll the dice. | ¶73 | col. 6:57-61 |
| (e) transmitting a second shaking motion start signal, which causes a second shaking motion... in response to the operation signal | In response to the shooter button being pressed, the controller allegedly starts a second shaking motion. | ¶77 | col. 6:64-67 |
| wherein the dice movable unit... (e1) performs the second shaking motion, which has an amplitude larger than that of the first shaking motion... | The complaint alleges the second shaking motion is "visibly larger than the amplitude of the first shaking motion," and provides a visual comparison of the two motions (Compl. p. 24, Image). | ¶81 | col. 8:1-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the accused product's initial agitation of the dice qualify as the claimed "first shaking motion"? A central question may be whether this is a distinct, controlled motion as required by the claim, or simply a standby or settling state before the player-initiated throw.
- Technical Questions: The allegation that the second shaking motion has a "visibly larger" amplitude raises an evidentiary question (Compl. ¶81). The analysis will depend on whether this visual difference can be technically substantiated as a larger "amplitude" under the claim's proper construction, which may require expert testimony and measurement beyond what is available in the complaint's photographs.
11,325,025 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving data at a drive mechanism from a user controlled input device indicative of a height the at least one dice should move upward | The system's drive mechanism receives data from a "shooter button" at a player station, which the complaint alleges is a user-controlled input device (Compl. p. 29, Image). | ¶102 | col. 22:4-7 |
| causing through the drive mechanism a platform holding the at least one dice to move upward with a first force | The drive mechanism causes the platform to oscillate up and down, with the upward oscillation constituting the "first force." | ¶104 | col. 23:2-4 |
| causing through the drive mechanism the platform to move downward either a first distance or over a first period of time | The up-and-down oscillation includes a downward movement of the platform. | ¶106 | col. 23:7-10 |
| causing through the drive mechanism the platform to move upward with a second force... | Following the initial shaking, the platform moves upward by a larger amount to "throw" the dice, which is alleged to be the "second force" (Compl. p. 31, Image). | ¶108 | col. 23:14-17 |
| wherein the height that the dice move upward is controlled by selecting at least one of the first force, the first distance, the first period of time, or the second force | The complaint alleges that the height of the dice throw is controlled by at least one of these parameters. | ¶108 | col. 23:17-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does receiving a signal from a simple "shooter button" satisfy the claim limitation of "receiving data... indicative of a height the at least one dice should move upward"? The patent specification discloses more complex inputs, such as "how hard, how far and/or how fast a user pushes the input device" (’025 Patent, col. 1:45-47). The analysis may turn on whether a binary "throw" signal can be construed as being "indicative of a height."
- Technical Questions: Does the accused product's operation, described as an "oscillation" followed by a "throw" (Compl. ¶¶104, 108), map onto the claim's distinct sequence of "upward with a first force," then "downward," then "upward with a second force"? The dispute may center on whether the accused product performs a single, continuous motion profile or the discrete, sequential steps recited in the method claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the ’738 Patent: "amplitude larger than that of the first shaking motion" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it defines the player-interactive element that distinguishes the second, player-initiated motion from the first. Proving infringement requires establishing that the accused device's second motion has a quantifiably "larger" amplitude.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not provide a specific numerical or percentage increase required for the amplitude. It describes the second shaking motion as one that causes the dice to "momentarily shake" and allows a player to "participate in the game actively," which may support an interpretation based on the overall functional effect rather than a precise physical measurement ('738 Patent, col. 8:7-8, 50-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "amplitude" has a technical meaning related to displacement. The abstract and detailed description frame the invention as two distinct motions, with the second being more vigorous to simulate a throw. This could support an interpretation requiring a measurable and significant increase in vertical displacement for the second motion compared to the first ('738 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-8).
Term from the ’025 Patent: "receiving data... indicative of a height the at least one dice should move upward" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the input that initiates the claimed method. The plaintiff’s infringement theory depends on a simple button press satisfying this "data indicative of a height" requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the act of pressing the "throw" button is inherently "indicative" of a desired "throw height" (a non-zero height), as opposed to the alternative of not throwing the dice (zero height). The claim language does not explicitly require the data to contain a specific numerical height value.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract states that the input data "may also include how hard, how far and/or how fast a user pushes the input device" (’025 Patent, Abstract). The detailed description further elaborates on using sensors to measure the speed or force of a player's hand movement to determine throw height (’025 Patent, col. 15:58-68). This suggests the invention contemplated data that contains more information than a simple binary on/off signal from a button.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶F). The factual basis for willfulness appears to be grounded in post-suit knowledge, as the complaint does not allege that Defendants had knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit's filing. The allegations suggest Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s market-leading products and developed a competing, lower-cost alternative, but do not specify knowledge of the underlying patents (Compl. ¶¶10, 20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: for the ’738 Patent, can the accused product's initial mechanical agitation be construed as the claimed "first shaking motion," and is its subsequent player-activated throw a "second shaking motion" with a demonstrably "larger amplitude"? The resolution will likely depend on whether the court views these as two distinct, sequential motions or a single, unified action preceded by a standby state.
- A key question will be one of informational mismatch: for the ’025 Patent, does the binary signal from the accused product's simple "shooter button" satisfy the claim requirement for "data... indicative of a height"? The case may turn on whether this claim language requires nuanced input data reflecting how a player interacts with the button, as suggested by the specification, or if a simple command to initiate a throw is sufficient.
- A central evidentiary question for both patents will be operational correspondence: does the physical operation of the accused machine, as shown in marketing materials and videos, map directly onto the specific, multi-step sequences recited in the asserted claims? This will likely require a detailed, fact-intensive comparison of the accused machine's motion profile against the claimed steps.