DCT

2:25-cv-01699

Interblock Doo v. Merkur Gaming US LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01699, D. Nev., 11/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant Merkur Gaming US, LLC resides in the district, and all defendants are alleged to have exhibited, used, and solicited sales for the accused products at the 2025 Global Gaming Expo in Las Vegas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “Charisma” line of automated electronic dice games infringes a patent related to a multi-stage, player-interactive dice shaking mechanism.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of automated electronic table games (ETGs), which seek to replicate the experience of live casino dice games like craps and sic-bo without a human dealer.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. RE46,738, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,926,438, which was originally issued on January 6, 2015.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-09-10 ’738 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2018-02-27 ’738 Patent - Reissue Date
2024-10-04 Merkur Group and Spintec allegedly announce strategic partnership
2025-10-06 Accused Products allegedly launched at Las Vegas Global Gaming Expo (G2E)
2025-11-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. RE46,738 - Gaming Machine with Dice Shaking Unit Performing Dice Shaking Motions with Varying Amplitudes

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a desire to make automated dice games more engaging for players. Conventional automated systems can lack the "superior operational sensation" and player involvement of a live game, where one player typically assumes the role of throwing the dice. (’738 Patent, col. 2:1-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a gaming system that creates an interactive, two-stage dice-shaking sequence. The system first performs an initial shaking motion. It then allows a designated player (the "shooter") at one of the game terminals to operate a button or similar device. This player action triggers a second, different shaking motion to complete the roll. (’738 Patent, col. 7:1-8:68). This process is managed by a controller that coordinates betting, the two distinct motions, and the player permission signal, thereby simulating the interactive nature of a live craps game. (’738 Patent, Fig. 1E).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to increase player engagement in automated table games by introducing a designated "shooter" role, a key social and interactive element of traditional dice games. (’738 Patent, col. 8:36-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s infringement count focuses on independent claim 5. (Compl. ¶68).
  • The essential elements of Claim 5 are:
    • A gaming system comprising a dice movable unit with dice and a shaking device.
    • A plurality of game terminals, each with a player-operable "operation device."
    • A controller that executes a specific sequence of processing steps:
      • (a) receiving signals indicating the end of betting from terminals where bets were placed ("betted terminals").
      • (b) transmitting a "first motion start signal" to the dice movable unit.
      • (c) transmitting a "permission signal" to a predetermined one of the betted terminals, permitting operation of its device.
      • (d) receiving an "operation signal" from that terminal after its device has been operated.
      • (e) transmitting a "second motion start signal" to the dice movable unit in response to the operation signal.
    • The dice movable unit, in turn, starts a "first motion" upon receiving the first signal and performs a "second motion, which is different from the first motion," upon receiving the second signal.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendants' "Charisma" line of multiplayer electronic table games (ETGs), including automated craps and sic-bo games. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 20, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are multiplayer gaming systems featuring a central, enclosed mechanical dice generator surrounded by individual player stations. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 20, 66).
  • Each player station is alleged to include an operation device, referred to as a "Shooter" button, that a player can operate. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 74). The complaint includes an annotated image of an accused product identifying the "Game terminals" and "Operation device." (Compl. p. 24, ¶73).
  • The complaint alleges, based on publicly available videos, that the accused products operate in at least two modes, an "Attract Configuration" and a "Realistic Configuration." (Compl. ¶77). In these modes, the system allegedly performs a "first motion" of rotating and shaking the dice during the betting period. (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 98). After betting concludes, the controller allegedly designates one player terminal as the "Shooter" and sends a permission signal. (Compl. ¶88). When that player presses the "Shooter" button, the system allegedly performs a "second motion," described as a "bump and then a settling motion," which is distinct from the first motion. (Compl. ¶¶ 94, 102). A visual from the complaint contrasts a stationary image of the dice with an image of the dice generator performing this alleged "first motion." (Compl. p. 27, ¶84).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendants are direct competitors who launched the accused products at the 2025 Las Vegas G2E and are attempting to take market share from the Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶ 60-63, 107).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,738 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) 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 products include a "dice movable unit" with dice and an automatic "shaking device" (a shaker plate) that imparts motion to the dice. An annotated image from the complaint identifies these components. ¶¶70-71; p. 23 col. 6:40-42
a plurality of game terminals... each having an operation device that a player can operate The accused products include multiple player game terminals, each having a "Shooter" button that serves as the operation device for the player. ¶¶72-74 col. 6:40-42
a controller that executes processing of: (a) receiving bet end signals from the betted terminals... The controller allegedly receives signals indicating betting has ended, either through a game timer or by players actuating a "Ready" button. ¶¶75-76, 79-80 col. 6:43-48
(b) transmitting a first motion start signal, which causes a first motion by the shaking device to start... The controller allegedly transmits a signal that starts a first motion, described as the rotation and shaking of the shaker plate during the betting period. ¶¶82-84 col. 7:1-4
(c) transmitting a permission signal, which permits an operation by the operation device of a predetermined game terminal... After betting ends, the controller allegedly designates one of the betted terminals as the "Shooter" and transmits a signal permitting the player to operate the "Shooter" button. ¶¶86-88 col. 7:5-12
(d) receiving an operation signal, which indicates that the operation device has been operated... The controller allegedly receives a signal from the "Shooter" terminal when the corresponding player operates the "Shooter" button. ¶¶89-91 col. 7:13-17
(e) transmitting a second motion start signal, which causes a second motion by the shaking device to start... in response to the operation signal In response to the "Shooter" button operation, the controller allegedly transmits a second signal that causes a second motion, described as a "bump" and settling motion. ¶¶92-94 col. 7:18-24
wherein the dice movable unit... (e1) performs the second motion, which is different from the first motion... The accused product's shaker plate allegedly executes a "bump and the settling motion" which is different from the initial "rotation and shaking of the shaker plate." ¶¶100-102 col. 7:48-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the claim term "different." A primary question for the court could be whether the accused product's alleged "bump and settling motion" is legally "different from" its initial "rotation and shaking" motion as contemplated by the patent. Defendants may argue the motions are merely variations of the same general shaking function.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the accused product's internal logic are based on "information and belief" derived from external observation. (Compl. ¶66). A key factual question will be whether the accused product's controller actually executes the specific, ordered sequence of receiving and transmitting distinct signals as required by claim 5 (e.g., a "first motion start signal" distinct from a "second motion start signal").

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a second motion, which is different from the first motion"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the patent's inventive concept of a player-triggered, two-stage event. The infringement analysis for Claim 5 hinges on whether the accused product's alleged two phases of operation constitute two "different" motions under the patent's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because it directly links the player's action to a distinct mechanical outcome.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's title refers to "Varying Amplitudes," suggesting that a change in the magnitude or intensity of motion could be sufficient to render it "different." The specification states that "the amplitude of the second shaking motion is larger than that of the first shaking motion." (’738 Patent, col. 7:48-50). This language may support an argument that any discernible change in motion characteristics qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "different" requires a change in the fundamental type of motion (e.g., rotational vs. vertical), not merely a change in amplitude. The detailed description of the second motion as enabling the dice to "jump" might be used to argue for a more specific type of jarring or bumping action, as distinguished from a continuous shaking or rotation. (’738 Patent, col. 8:40-42).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks a finding that infringement was willful and requests a trebling of damages. (Compl. p. 35, ¶F). The body of the complaint, however, does not allege specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the ’738 Patent by the Defendants.

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional distinction: Does the accused product's dice-shaking mechanism, as a matter of technical fact, execute two separate and distinct motions—an initial automated motion followed by a different, player-triggered final motion—or does it perform a single, continuous motion that is merely modulated by player input? The answer will likely depend on detailed evidence of the accused system's software and hardware operation.
  • A related legal question will be one of definitional scope: How will the term "different" be construed? The case may turn on whether a demonstrated change in the amplitude of shaking is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if the court requires a more fundamental change in the character of the mechanical motion (e.g., from rotation to a vertical bump).