DCT
2:25-cv-01758
Fortuna IP LLC v. Fertitta Entertainment LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fortuna IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: FERTITTA ENTERTAINTAINMENT, LLC, et al. (Nevada/Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mushkin & Coppedge; Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01758, D. Nev., 09/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as each Defendant is a resident of Nevada and/or maintains a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ casino gaming machines, multi-player gaming systems, and associated loyalty programs (such as the 24K Select Rewards program) infringe three patents related to dedicated player gaming devices, management of multi-player online games, and modification of legacy gaming machines with secondary features.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the architecture of networked casino gaming systems, particularly how players are identified, tracked, and assigned to games, and how new features are added to existing machines.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of the asserted patents and their alleged infringement on multiple occasions, culminating on March 25, 2025, a date which serves as the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-03-14 | Earliest Priority Date for '342 and '522 Patents |
| 2012-09-18 | Earliest Priority Date for '441 Patent |
| 2013-09-10 | '342 Patent Issued |
| 2014-02-04 | '522 Patent Issued |
| 2020-03-31 | '441 Patent Issued |
| 2025-03-25 | Alleged Final Pre-Suit Notice of Infringement |
| 2025-09-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,529,342, “Gaming System with Dedicated Player Gaming Devices,” Issued September 10, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of players at traditional casino machines losing their "hot streak" or accumulated progress in a game (such as bonus symbols) if they leave the machine and another person plays it. It also notes that systems allowing remote play by "locking" a physical machine on the casino floor take a valuable asset out of service for patrons who are physically present (ʼ342 Patent, col. 1:11-2:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where each player is assigned a unique, dedicated gaming device—conceived as a physical electronic game board in a server rack—that is not publicly accessible on the casino floor. Players access their dedicated device remotely through a "presentation device" (such as a personal computer or phone) via a gateway that verifies their identity. This architecture ensures that a player's game state is preserved and cannot be interfered with by others, as only the assigned player can access the device ('342 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:23-44).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to merge the security and persistence of a personal gaming account with the regulated, server-based infrastructure of casino wagering, while decoupling remote play from the physical inventory of machines on the casino floor (Compl. ¶¶1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- Claim 1 of the ’342 Patent requires a method with the following essential elements:
- providing a plurality of gaming devices and assigning one to a player for exclusive play;
- storing player identification information in association with information identifying the assigned device;
- receiving player identification information from a player's presentation device;
- verifying the player identification information;
- if verified, establishing a communication link between the presentation device and the assigned gaming device;
- generating game information at the gaming device; and
- transmitting the game information from the gaming device to the presentation device via the link.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, and 13 (Compl. ¶27).
U.S. Patent No. 8,641,522, “Method and System for Online Poker Play,” Issued February 4, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of player collusion in online multi-player wagering games like poker, which it notes is more difficult to detect than in a physical casino where players are observable ('522 Patent, col. 3:36-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention extends the dedicated gaming device concept by linking these individual devices to a central game server that manages multi-player game instances. The method involves placing players who wish to join a game into a "game queue" and then "randomly assigning" each player from the queue to a specific game instance, such as a virtual poker table. This centralized, server-managed assignment process provides a framework for implementing anti-collusion measures, such as anonymizing players and randomizing seating ('522 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:36-51).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes an architecture intended to provide greater integrity and fairness in online multi-player wagering by controlling how players are grouped and seated, thereby disrupting potential collusion ('522 Patent, col. 5:25-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
- Claim 1 of the ’522 Patent requires a method with the following essential elements:
- assigning a gaming device to each player and storing associated identification information;
- receiving and verifying player identification from a presentation device to establish a communication link;
- linking the player's gaming device to a game server;
- placing each linked player into a game queue;
- randomly assigning each player in the queue to an instance of an online game generated by the server;
- generating game information at the server for each game instance; and
- transmitting the game information from the server through the player's gaming device to their presentation device.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Compl. ¶63).
U.S. Patent No. 10,607,441, “Method of Modifying a Primary Game of an Existing Legacy Gaming Machine to Include Secondary Game Features,” Issued March 31, 2020
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the high cost for casinos to replace or reprogram existing "legacy" gaming machines to add new features. The invention provides for a "secondary hardware controller" that is physically or logically "interposed" between the machine's main game controller and its peripheral devices (e.g., display, printer, touch screen). This secondary controller can introduce new functionality, such as player rewards, bonus games, or secondary wagers, by monitoring, overriding, or supplementing the data flowing between the main controller and the peripherals, without altering the certified software of the main controller (’441 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:15-24).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶103).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Defendants' gaming machines are modified to include reward terminals that function as the claimed "secondary hardware controller," presenting secondary gaming functionality such as the "24K Select Rewards points accrual" (Compl. ¶¶105, 111).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' casino gaming systems, which include electronic gaming machines from various manufacturers (e.g., IGT, Aristocrat, Bally) integrated with Defendants' "24K Select Rewards program" and its multi-player electronic poker and progressive jackpot systems (Compl. ¶¶12, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused systems operate by allowing a player to insert a "24K Select Rewards card" into a physical gaming machine on the casino floor (Compl. ¶38). This action links the player's account to that specific machine for the duration of the play session. A central server receives the player's information from the card reader, verifies it, and establishes a link that allows the system to track gameplay, accrue reward points, and display account information on the machine's terminal (Compl. ¶¶40, 42, 44). The complaint also accuses multi-player systems, such as shared progressive jackpots, where players on different machines are linked to a centralized game server to participate in a shared game instance (Compl. ¶¶72, 82). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendants' website referencing "approximately 1,000 new slot and video poker machines," indicating the scale of operations (Compl. p. 25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'342 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a plurality of gaming devices and assigning one of said gaming devices to said player for exclusive play by said player | Defendants offer numerous electronic gaming devices on the casino floor; when a player inserts their 24K Select Rewards card, the system assigns that specific device to the player for their exclusive play session. | ¶38 | col. 15:58-62 |
| storing player identification information in association with information which identifies said gaming device assigned to said player | The system stores the player's identification information (e.g., from the card's magnetic stripe) in association with an identifier for the gaming device being used. | ¶40 | col. 11:21-26 |
| receiving player identification information from a presentation device of said player | The system receives player ID information when the player inserts the Rewards card into the card reader terminal, which functions as a presentation device. | ¶42 | col. 13:18-22 |
| verifying said player identification information | A server verifies the received player ID information against stored account data. | ¶44 | col. 13:51-54 |
| if said player identification information is verified, establishing a communication link between said player's presentation device and said gaming device assigned to said player | Once verified, the server establishes a communication link between the rewards terminal (presentation device) and the gaming machine to enable functions like displaying reward point accrual. The complaint provides a screenshot showing a rewards terminal display that appears upon login (Compl. p. 18). | ¶44 | col. 13:55-63 |
| generating game information at said gaming device | The gaming machine generates game information, such as wager amounts and game outcomes. | ¶46 | col. 10:65-67 |
| transmitting said gaming information from said gaming device to said player's presentation device via said communication link | The gaming machine transmits gaming information (e.g., wager amount, points accrued) to the rewards terminal for display to the player. | ¶48 | col. 14:4-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether "assigning one of said gaming devices to said player for exclusive play" can be interpreted to cover a temporary session on a publicly available machine initiated by a loyalty card. The patent's specification repeatedly describes a system where a player is assigned a dedicated physical device (a circuit board in a rack) for remote access, which is structurally different from using a shared machine on a casino floor ('342 Patent, col. 3:23-29).
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the rewards card reader and its associated display constitute a "presentation device" separate from the "gaming device" in the manner claimed, or if they are an integrated part of a single apparatus.
'522 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| linking said player's gaming device to a game server | Defendants' gaming machines, such as those used for electronic poker or shared progressive jackpots, are linked to a centralized game server. | ¶82 | col. 16:1-3 |
| placing each linked player into a game queue | Players are "queued or queried for" participation in a shared game instance, such as a progressive jackpot. | ¶82 | col. 16:21-25 |
| randomly assigning each player in said game queue to an instance of an on-line game generated by said game server | Players are randomly assigned to an instance of the shared game. The complaint gives an example where two players who win a shared jackpot are awarded different amounts based on their position in the queue. | ¶82 | col. 16:36-41 |
| relative to each game instance, generating game information at said game server regarding a game | The centralized game server generates game information, such as wager acknowledgements and the awarding of rewards points for the shared game instance. | ¶84 | col. 16:56-59 |
| transmitting said game information regarding said player's assigned game instance from said game server through each player's gaming device to said player's presentation device... | The game server transmits information (e.g., rewards points awarded) back to the player's presentation device (the terminal) via the gaming machine. | ¶84 | col. 17:1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definitions of "game queue" and "randomly assigning." It raises the question of whether the systems for shared progressive jackpots, where players opt-in from their respective machines, constitute the specific queuing and random assignment process described in the patent, which appears modeled on creating virtual poker tables from a pool of waiting players.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the assignment to a shared jackpot is "random" from a "queue," as opposed to a system where all active, qualifying players are simply eligible to win? The complaint's example of award amounts being based on queue position suggests some form of ordering, but the mechanism for queuing and assignment is not detailed (Compl. ¶82).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’342 Patent
- The Term: "assigning one of said gaming devices to said player for exclusive play" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. Defendants' systems involve temporary use of public machines, whereas the patent was arguably directed to a different architecture of permanently dedicated remote-access hardware. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the claim language can be construed to cover temporary, session-based "assignment."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a duration for the "exclusive play" or the nature of the "gaming device," which may support an interpretation that covers exclusive use for a single session.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention as solving the problem of another player using "the" machine, implying a persistent association. It states that "only the assigned player may access their assigned gaming device, even when the assigned player is not using their gaming device" ('342 Patent, col. 4:1-4), which suggests a permanent assignment rather than a temporary session. The complaint itself references patent figures showing players remotely accessing dedicated server boards (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 1 & 4).
For the ’522 Patent
- The Term: "placing each linked player into a game queue" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the method of managing multi-player games. Whether Defendants' systems, particularly for progressive jackpots, actually "place" players into a "queue" in the claimed sense will be a key point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of a shared jackpot may differ significantly from the patent's description of forming discrete game tables.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "queue" could be broadly construed to mean any group of players eligible to participate in a game instance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process where "each player who elects to play a particular game is placed into a game queue" and the server then "assigns players to game instances" from that queue, which implies a distinct waiting list from which discrete games are formed, akin to a poker lobby ('522 Patent, col. 15:36-41). This may not map directly onto a system where all currently playing users are simultaneously eligible for a single jackpot event.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by third-party users (casino patrons). This is based on Defendants providing the integrated gaming machines and rewards systems and actively encouraging patrons to use them in an infringing manner, for example by "promoting and encouraging use of the 24K Select Rewards card to assign players to specific gaming devices for exclusive play" (Compl. ¶51). The complaint points to Defendants' marketing materials as evidence of this encouragement (Compl. p. 21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' continued infringing activities after receiving notice of the patents-in-suit, with the notice date alleged as no later than March 25, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶50, 85, 116).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely depend on the resolution of several key questions regarding claim scope and technical operation, framed for judicial determination:
- A core issue will be one of architectural divergence: can the claim phrase "assigning... for exclusive play" from the '342 patent, which is described in the specification as a dedicated, remote-access hardware board assigned permanently to one player, be construed to cover the temporary, session-based use of a public gaming machine on a casino floor initiated by a loyalty card?
- A second central question will be one of functional process: do Defendants' multi-player and progressive jackpot systems perform the specific, sequential method of "placing each linked player into a game queue" and then "randomly assigning" players from that queue to a game instance, as required by the '522 patent, or do they operate on a different technical basis, such as making all active players simultaneously eligible for a shared event?
- A third question involves component definition: does the integration of a player rewards terminal with a legacy gaming machine constitute a "secondary hardware controller interposed between" the main controller and its peripherals as claimed by the '441 patent, or does it function as a parallel system that communicates with, but is not "interposed" in, the primary operational data path of the game itself?