Savvy Dog Systems LLC v. Pennsylvania Coin LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Savvy Dog Systems, LLC (Wyoming) and POM of Pennsylvania, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Pennsylvania Coin, LLC (Pennsylvania) and PA Coin Holdings, LLC (Pennsylvania)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kleinbard LLC
• Case Identification: 3:19-cv-01470, M.D. Pa., 11/01/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants being Pennsylvania companies with regular and established places of business within the district, where they have allegedly committed the acts of infringement.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ electronic gaming terminals, which feature a "preview" of the game's outcome, infringe a patent related to skill-based gaming systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic amusement machines designed to operate as "games of skill" rather than "games of chance," a legal distinction relevant for regulatory compliance in various jurisdictions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the patent's prosecution, the USPTO Examiner issued a "Reasons for Allowance" stating that the prior art did not teach the claimed step of testing a game field before displaying it to the player. In 2020, after this suit was filed, the patent owner filed a disclaimer for a number of claims in the patent, though the asserted independent claim 44 was not among them.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-03-31	'223 Patent Priority Date
2010-06-15	'223 Patent Issue Date
2019-11-01	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,736,223, “Electronic Gaming Method and System Having Preview Screen,” issued June 15, 2010.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section addresses the regulatory environment for electronic games, distinguishing between heavily regulated "games of chance" and more permissible "skill-based amusement machines." (Compl. ¶18; ’223 Patent, col. 1:13-27). To qualify as skill-based, the outcome must be controlled by the player, not by predetermined odds or random chance controlled by the machine. (Compl. ¶18; ’223 Patent, col. 1:24-27). The technical challenge is to design a game that can be considered predominantly skill-based while operating within an electronic terminal.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that presents players with a "game preview display" before they commit to playing the game. (’223 Patent, col. 1:64-67). The system first constructs a game field and determines a winning outcome. Crucially, it then "tests" the field to ensure that any subsequent player interaction (like a "nudge" or selecting a wild symbol) cannot inadvertently create a more valuable winning combination than the one already determined. (’223 Patent, col. 16:59-62). This "tested" game state is then displayed to the player as a preview, giving them the "skill-based" choice of whether to accept the known outcome and play the game. (Compl. ¶21; ’223 Patent, col. 10:37-43).
  • Technical Importance: This method was designed to infuse a traditional game of chance with an element of skill, thereby enhancing its appeal and potential legality in jurisdictions that permit games of predominant skill. (Compl. ¶26).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 44. (Compl. ¶43).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 44 are:
    • An electronic gaming system with an electronic game terminal including a touch screen display.
    • A game processor configured for several functions, including:
      • Constructing a game field with symbols.
      • Determining at least one winning combination for each play.
      • Testing the game field prior to display to ensure a more valuable winning combination is not inadvertently generated.
      • Automatically displaying an actual game to be played on the touch screen prior to initiating activation of game play.
      • Determining if the player has decided to play the displayed game.
      • Displaying an outcome from the play.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "electronic video gaming terminals" that are equipped with gaming circuit boards supplied by Banilla Games and loaded with games described as "Preview + Skill" or "Fusion Games." (Compl. ¶¶41-42). Specific game families named include "Superior Skill," "Lightning Skill," "Choice Skill," and "Fusion." (Compl. ¶42, 88).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these terminals operate by presenting the player with a preview of a game's outcome before the player commits money to that play. (Compl. ¶¶50, 68). This is allegedly accomplished through a "prize viewer" feature that shows the result of the next game. (Compl. ¶68). The games are also alleged to incorporate interactive elements like "nudge" and "hot swap" features, where a player can physically or digitally manipulate the game's symbols to complete a winning line. (Compl. ¶¶71-72, 75-76). The complaint alleges these games are marketed as skill-based amusement games. (Compl. ¶47). A screenshot from the accused "Superior Skill" game shows a "prize viewer" displaying a prospective win of "$0.75" and a "Press Play to Continue" button, illustrating the alleged preview functionality before play is activated. (Compl. ¶78, p. 33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,736,223 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 44)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an electronic game terminal including a touch screen display	The accused products are electronic gaming terminals with touch screens. A screenshot depicts a user touching the screen of an accused "Superior Skill: Lightning Edition" terminal.	¶¶55-58	col. 18:50-52
a game processor for generating an interactive electronic game... configured for:	The accused products use a game processor to run the games, receive touch inputs, and generate display outputs.	¶60	col. 18:53-56
constructing a field having a plurality of elements for the interactive game display wherein each element includes a game symbol from a plurality of predetermined game symbols	The accused games construct a field of play, typically a 3x3 or 3x5 array of game symbols, as shown in multiple screenshots. A screenshot highlights a pay table on the side of the screen, identifying the predetermined symbols.	¶¶62, 65	col. 18:57-61
determining at least one winning combination for each play of the game	The accused games use a processor to determine winning combinations and payouts, as evidenced by the displayed "pay table" and "prize viewer" features which show the outcome before the game is played.	¶68	col. 19:1-3
testing the game field prior to displaying the game to the player to ensure that a winning combination more valuable than the determined winning combination is not generated inadvertently in completing the field	The complaint alleges that for "nudge" or "hot-swap" games, the processor tests the field to ensure the player's interaction cannot create a win greater than the predetermined, previewed prize. A screenshot depicts the "nudging" interaction.	¶¶70-72, 75-76	col. 18:9-14
automatically displaying an actual game to be played on the touch screen game display to a player prior to initiating activation of game play	The accused games display a "prize viewer" showing the game's outcome and a "Press Play" prompt, which the complaint alleges constitutes the claimed preview.	¶78	col. 18:15-18
determining if the player has decided to play the displayed game	The processor receives input from the "Press Play" button on the touch screen to determine the player has decided to play.	¶82	col. 18:19-20
displaying an outcome resulting from play of the displayed game	After the player hits "play," the processor performs an animation and displays the final outcome, for example by adding the prize value to the player's credits. A screenshot identifies the "WIN" and "CREDITS" display fields as the outcome.	¶¶84-86	col. 19:21-22

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The complaint alleges that the accused products "test" the game field to prevent player actions from creating an unexpectedly large win (Compl. ¶¶71-72), which maps to a key limitation. A central question will be whether the accused software performs a specific, discrete "testing" step as claimed, or if the inability to achieve a larger-than-previewed prize is simply an inherent function of any game with a predetermined outcome, rather than an independent, infringing step.
  • Scope Question: Does the accused "prize viewer," which displays a static image of the result and a "Press Play" prompt (Compl. ¶78, p. 33), meet the claim requirement of "displaying an actual game to be played... prior to initiating activation"? The defense may argue this is merely a results screen, not the "actual game," while the plaintiff may point to specification language stating the "preview screen could actually be the results screen." (’223 Patent, col. 11:20-22).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "testing the game field"
• Context and Importance: This limitation was identified by the patent examiner as a point of novelty over the prior art (Compl. ¶29) and is central to the patent's purported invention. The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on whether the accused products' logic for handling "nudge" and "hot-swap" features falls within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, defining the test by its purpose: "to ensure that a winning combination more valuable than the determined winning combination is not generated inadvertently." (’223 Patent, col. 18:11-14). This could support an interpretation covering any software routine that achieves this result, regardless of its specific implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an algorithm to "assess[] the arrangement of the prize(s) to be offered to assure that no other, more valuable prizes will inadvertently be presented." (’223 Patent, col. 6:28-31). A defendant could argue this requires a specific, affirmative check performed after a prize is selected but before the preview is displayed, potentially narrowing the term to a distinct software step rather than a general system property.
• The Term: "automatically displaying an actual game to be played"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the "preview" that must be shown to the player. The plaintiff's case relies on the accused "prize viewer" screen meeting this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a static results screen can infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides direct support for a broad reading, stating, "In this case, the preview screen could actually be the results screen, displaying the game outcome." (’223 Patent, col. 11:20-22). This language suggests that displaying the result is equivalent to displaying the "actual game."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the phrase "actual game to be played" implies a potentially interactive game state, not just a static image of the final outcome. The claim distinguishes between displaying the "game to be played" (element 44.6) and later "displaying an outcome" (element 44.8), which could suggest these are two different types of displays.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been and continues to be willful, based on the allegation that Defendants "have had knowledge and notice of the '223 Patent." (Compl. ¶¶119, 124). The complaint does not plead specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge beyond this "information and belief" assertion.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical function: does the accused products' programming for "nudge" and "hot-swap" features perform the specific, affirmative "testing" function as required by Claim 44, or is the inability to exceed the previewed prize an inherent, unclaimable property of any software engine that predetermines game outcomes?
• A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the accused products' "prize viewer"—a screen that displays a static game outcome before the player commits to the play—be construed as "displaying an actual game to be played"? The resolution may depend on whether the specification's disclosure that the preview "could actually be the results screen" is read as defining the scope of the claim or merely describing one possible, non-limiting embodiment.