DCT

6:21-cv-00331

IGT v. Zynga Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00331, W.D. Tex., 05/05/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Zynga has a regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portfolio of online social games infringes six patents related to technologies for detecting cheating, ensuring uninterrupted mobile gameplay, securely transferring software, managing network gaming systems, delivering player-specific messages, and enabling in-game transactions.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses core architectural, security, and user experience challenges in the online and mobile social casino gaming industry, a commercially significant digital entertainment market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089 at least as of April 12, 2013, due to its involvement in Interference No. 105,747, and received further notice via letter on September 25, 2020. Pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473 is also alleged via the same September 25, 2020 letter. Such allegations of pre-suit notice may be relevant to the plaintiff’s claims for willful infringement. For the other four patents, knowledge is alleged as of the service of the original complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-12-07 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089
2001-11-23 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212
2002-02-25 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473
2002-10-11 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,795,064
2006-07-03 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,708,791
2007-01-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089 Issued
2007-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473 Issued
2012-01-13 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189
2012-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212 Issued
2013-04-12 Alleged Notice to Zynga of ’089 Patent via Interference Proceeding
2014-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,708,791 Issued
2014-08-05 U.S. Patent No. 8,795,064 Issued
2015-10-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189 Issued
2020-09-25 Alleged Notice to Zynga of ’089 and ’473 Patents via Letter
2021-05-05 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,708,791 - “Detecting and preventing bots and cheating in online gaming”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,708,791, “Detecting and preventing bots and cheating in online gaming,” Issued April 29, 2014. (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of cheating in online wagering games, particularly the use of automated programs ("bots") that can employ perfect strategic play, and unfair collusion between multiple human players. (’791 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:23-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a gaming system gathers gameplay data from multiple players, analyzes this data to establish a baseline "typical gaming style" for each individual player, and then monitors for deviations from that style. (’791 Patent, Abstract). The system then compares the timing of these deviations among different players to identify instances of "probable collusion." (’791 Patent, col. 2:18-20).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to protect the integrity of online gaming environments by moving beyond simple rule enforcement to behavioral analysis, which is critical for maintaining player trust and regulatory compliance. (’791 Patent, col. 1:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶19).
  • The essential elements of claim 1, a gaming method, include:
    • providing an online wagering game via host devices and a game server.
    • presenting game data in a format requiring a human interface or pattern recognition.
    • gathering gameplay data from the host devices during the game.
    • analyzing the gameplay data to determine individual players' typical gaming styles and times of deviation from those styles.
    • comparing the times of deviation among players to determine instances of probable collusion.

U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189 - “Mobile gaming device carrying out uninterrupted game despite communications link disruption”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189, “Mobile gaming device carrying out uninterrupted game despite communications link disruption,” Issued October 13, 2015. (Compl. ¶¶29-30).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the user frustration that occurs when a mobile game is terminated mid-play due to an unreliable or failed wireless connection. (’189 Patent, col. 1:22-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where, if a communication link fails after a game has begun but before the outcome is received from the server, the mobile device locally "extend[s] the game animation" (e.g., keeps slot reels spinning). (’189 Patent, col. 4:46-51). Once the connection is re-established, the server transmits the previously determined final outcome, which is then displayed on the device, thereby creating a seamless and "not interrupted" perceived experience for the player. (’189 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technology improves the perceived reliability and user experience of mobile wagering games, making them more viable and enjoyable in real-world environments with intermittent wireless connectivity. (’189 Patent, col. 2:24-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 10 (a system). (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • establishing a wireless link between a mobile gaming device and a stationary gaming terminal.
    • in the event of a link failure after game animation has begun but before the outcome is received, performing steps comprising:
    • extending the game animation on the mobile device beyond a typical time until the link is re-established.
    • once re-established, transmitting the outcome signals, stopping the animation, and displaying the final outcome to provide a perceived uninterrupted game.
  • Claim 10 recites a gaming system programmed to carry out the method of claim 1. (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089 - “Secured virtual network in a gaming environment”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089, “Secured virtual network in a gaming environment,” Issued January 23, 2007. (Compl. ¶¶49-50).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for securely transferring gaming software from a first gaming device (e.g., a server) to a second gaming device (e.g., a player's client). (Compl. ¶54). The method involves the second device sending a request, which is then forwarded to a "gaming software authorization agent" that either approves or rejects the transfer, and an authorization message is sent back indicating the decision. (’089 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 84. (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Zynga’s system for offering games like Zynga Poker infringes by using a server (the first gaming device) that receives a request from a client device (the second gaming device) and includes an authorization agent that approves or rejects the transfer, for example, by denying service to previously banned players. (Compl. ¶¶55-56).

U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473 - “Network gaming system”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,303,473, “Network gaming system,” Issued December 4, 2007. (Compl. ¶¶62-63).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a "website controller" that manages a network gaming system. (Compl. ¶67). The controller receives game selection data from a remote player, uses that data to determine whether to select a first or second gaming computer, and facilitates data communication between the player's device and the selected gaming computer to enable gameplay. (’473 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 22. (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Zynga's Hit It Rich offering, alleging that Zynga's servers operating zynga.com function as the claimed website controller. (Compl. ¶67). When a user selects a game from a lobby, the Zynga server allegedly receives the selection, determines the appropriate content server for that game, and facilitates communication to allow gameplay. (Compl. ¶¶70-72).

U.S. Patent No. 8,795,064 - “Method and apparatus for outputting a message at a game machine”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,795,064, “Method and apparatus for outputting a message at a game machine,” Issued August 5, 2014. (Compl. ¶¶82-83).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method of operating a gaming system that tracks player information and, when a "message trigger condition" occurs, determines an appropriate message based on the tracked information and outputs it to the player. (’064 Patent, Abstract). The system can use different sets of tracked information to determine different messages. (Compl. ¶¶90-91).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 9. (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Zynga's spin slot machine games, such as Game of Thrones Slots Casino, infringe. (Compl. ¶¶87, 91). These games allegedly track player information and use trigger conditions (e.g., player inactivity) to output a first type of message (e.g., "TIRED ALREADY? SPIN NOW") and use different tracked information (e.g., high activity and large wagers) to output a second, different message (e.g., an invitation to "LEGENDARY QUESTS"). (Compl. ¶¶90-91).

U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212 - “Game talk service bus”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,266,212, “Game talk service bus,” Issued September 11, 2012. (Compl. ¶¶94-95).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for distributed gaming over a "communication bus." (’212 Patent, Abstract). A first gaming machine "publishes" a high-level function (e.g., payment authorization) over the bus. A separate "node" coupled to the bus can then send a request to "subscribe" to that function, which the first gaming machine accepts to initiate a gaming session or transaction. (Compl. ¶¶100-104).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 24. (Compl. ¶97).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the in-game purchasing system in games like Words With Friends. (Compl. ¶101). It alleges Zynga's servers (first gaming machine) publish a billing/payment function, and the user's device (node) subscribes to this function by selecting a virtual item for purchase, which the server then accepts and authorizes. (Compl. ¶¶101-104).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as the servers, hardware, and software that enable players to use Zynga's various game offerings. (Compl. ¶14). Specific products named include, among others, Zynga Poker, Mustang Money, Hit It Rich, Game of Thrones Slots Casino, and Words With Friends. (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are social casino and mobile games that operate on a client-server model. The user's device (e.g., personal computer, mobile phone) connects to Zynga's servers, which host the game logic, manage player data, and process game outcomes. (Compl. ¶¶21, 35).
  • The complaint alleges that Zynga uses a proprietary analytics system called "ZTrack" to "put hooks in application code that record certain events such as installs, visits, messaging," and other player interactions. (Compl. ¶24). This data is allegedly used for analysis and to monitor for activities like cheating and collusion. (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
  • In mobile games like Mustang Money, the complaint alleges a specific functionality designed to handle network interruptions by continuing to display game animations locally on the user's device until a server connection is restored. (Compl. ¶¶38-39). The screenshots of the Mustang Money interface show the game's lobby, reels in motion, and a final win outcome. (Compl. p. 14).
  • The complaint positions Zynga as "a leading developer of the world's most popular social games," claiming that "more than one billion people" have played its games. (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,708,791 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing, by plurality of host devices and the at least one game server, an online wagering game Zynga Poker provides an online Texas Hold ‘Em game using players' host devices and a server. ¶22 col. 2:5-7
presenting, by plurality of host devices, game data required for participation in the online wagering game in a format that requires a human interface or the use of pattern recognition methods The Zynga Poker interface presents playing card data, wager information, and player images to the user. A screenshot in the complaint shows the game table interface. (Compl. p. 7). ¶23 col. 2:8-11
gathering, by the plurality of host devices, game play data while players are using the plurality of host devices to play Internet wagering games The accused products allegedly use a system called "ZTrack" with hooks and cookies to collect event and player information. ¶24 col. 2:12-14
analyzing, by the at least one game server, the game play data to determine individual players' typical gaming styles and times of deviation from the typical gaming styles Zynga allegedly analyzes the collected data by dedicating people to design experiments and by tracking how users interact with the games. ¶25 col. 2:15-18
comparing, by the at least one game server, times of deviation from players' typical gaming styles to determine instances of probable collusion between players Zynga allegedly monitors game play and user data to detect deviations from typical gaming styles to determine instances of collusion or other cheating. ¶26 col. 2:18-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be whether Zynga's alleged "cohort-based analysis" and tracking of "how users interact with the games" meets the specific claim limitation of determining "individual players' typical gaming styles." (Compl. ¶¶9, 25). The defense may argue that group-level analysis does not equate to establishing an individualized behavioral baseline as required by the claim.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Zynga monitors for collusion, but a key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that this monitoring involves the specific claimed step of "comparing... times of deviation" between players, as opposed to simply flagging individual players for anomalous behavior against a general standard. (Compl. ¶26).

9,159,189 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
establishing a wireless communications link between a mobile gaming device... and a stationary gaming terminal that carriers out a gaming program The Mustang Money game establishes a wireless link between a user's mobile device and a Zynga server to carry out the game. ¶35 col. 4:18-22
receiving player control signals... displaying game animation... carrying out the game... transmitting signals... stopping the game animation... and displaying... the final outcome... The accused game enables a user to play on a mobile device, with control signals received by a server, game animation displayed on the device, the outcome determined by the server, and the final result displayed on the device. ¶36 col. 4:23-37
in the event of a communications link failure... extending the game animation for the game by the mobile gaming device during the communications link failure beyond a typical time for the game until the communications link has been re-established In the event of an interruption, such as in a user's Wi-Fi connection, the animated reels in Mustang Money allegedly continue to spin during the interruption. Screenshots in the complaint depict various stages of gameplay. (Compl. p. 14). ¶¶37-38 col. 4:46-51
once the communication link has been re-established, transmitting the signals... stopping the game animation... and displaying... the final outcome... such that the game perceived by the player is not interrupted Once the communication link is restored, the animation is allegedly stopped and the final outcome is displayed on the screen, creating the perception of an uninterrupted game. ¶39 col. 4:52-60
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether Zynga's remote server infrastructure qualifies as a "stationary gaming terminal" under the patent's claim language. The defense may argue this term implies a physical, localized gaming machine, not a distributed, cloud-based server.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused products "extend a game animation" during a link failure. (Compl. ¶38). A key technical question will be whether this is a deliberately engineered function to mask the interruption, as claimed, or a different technical behavior, such as the client simply continuing a local animation loop while awaiting a server response that never arrives until the connection is restored.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 8,708,791

  • The Term: "typical gaming styles"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the "analyzing" and "comparing" steps of claim 1. Its definition will determine whether Zynga's alleged use of group-level or "cohort-based" analytics can meet the claim's requirement for establishing an individualized baseline for each player.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes analyzing "patterns of player interaction" and "gaming activities," which a party could argue is broad enough to include patterns identified at a group or cohort level. (’791 Patent, col. 3:45-50).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly requires determining "individual players' typical gaming styles," suggesting the analysis must be personalized. The abstract likewise refers to "individual players," which may support an interpretation that the "style" must be unique to a single person, not a group. (’791 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16).

U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189

  • The Term: "stationary gaming terminal"
  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff's infringement theory maps this term onto Zynga's servers. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim can read on a modern, distributed cloud-server architecture or is limited to a physical machine, such as one in a casino.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "gaming terminal" as the entity that "carries out a gaming program" and "determin[es] a final outcome," functions that are performed by Zynga's servers. (’189 Patent, col. 4:21-22, 4:31-32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section discusses the context of mobile devices communicating with "gaming machines" within a "gaming venue," which could suggest that the "terminal" is a physical, localized machine rather than a remote, non-physical server entity. (’189 Patent, col. 1:19-25).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for the ’189 Patent, asserting that by providing the Mustang Money game and instructions for use to end users, Zynga specifically intends for and causes users to infringe the system claims of the patent. (Compl. ¶¶43-44). Similar allegations are made for the ’473 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶76-77).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. For the ’089 and ’473 Patents, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge from a 2013 USPTO Interference proceeding and a 2020 notice letter. (Compl. ¶¶60, 80). For the ’791, ’189, ’064, and ’212 Patents, willfulness is based on knowledge alleged to have been acquired at least as of the filing of the original complaint. (Compl. ¶¶27, 47, 92, 107).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms grounded in the context of physical gaming machines, such as "stationary gaming terminal" (’189 Patent), be construed to cover the distributed, cloud-based server architecture of modern online social games?
  • A second key question will be one of evidentiary proof: what specific technical evidence will be presented to show that Zynga's general-purpose data analytics and anti-cheating measures perform the precise, multi-step functions required by the claims, such as comparing inter-player deviation timing to find collusion (’791 Patent) or deliberately extending animation to mask a network failure (’189 Patent)?
  • A central issue for damages will be willfulness: can the plaintiff establish that Defendant’s alleged infringement of the ’089 and ’473 patents was willful based on alleged pre-suit knowledge from a USPTO proceeding and notice letters, potentially opening the door to enhanced damages for those patents?