Beteiro LLC v. PlayUp Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Beteiro, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: PlayUp Limited (Australia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01150, W.D. Tex., 11/08/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper under the “alien venue rule” because the Defendant is a foreign entity that maintains a regular and established business presence in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile and online sports wagering platform infringes four U.S. patents related to systems and methods for facilitating remote gambling activities using geolocation technology to ensure regulatory compliance.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the legal and logistical challenges of online sports betting, where a user's physical location determines the legality of a wager under varying state and federal laws.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiner expressly considered their eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l and found the claims patent-eligible, noting they require particular machines and provide a technological improvement to online betting.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,043,341 - "Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the problem that individuals who enjoy gambling may not have physical access to gaming venues and that prior art systems failed to provide a way to access these activities remotely while also providing enhanced information to improve the experience (’341 Patent, col. 1:47-62; Compl. ¶29). A further problem addressed is the inability of wagering platforms to effectively administer and regulate online wagering to comply with the differing laws of various jurisdictions (’341 Patent, col. 6:58-7:2; Compl. ¶30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus, including a central computer, that detects the posting of information about a gaming or sporting event, generates a notification message to a user’s communication device, receives a subsequent bet message from that device, and uses a "global positioning device" to determine the user's location at the time of the bet. Based on this location information, the computer determines whether the bet is allowed or disallowed, thereby facilitating legally compliant remote wagering (’341 Patent, Abstract). The overall system architecture includes user devices communicating with a central processing computer which, in turn, can connect to various gaming, financial, and governmental computers (’341 Patent, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a technological solution to the legal and regulatory hurdles of remote wagering by integrating geolocation technology to ascertain the jurisdiction from which a bet is placed, an unconventional solution at the time of invention (Compl. ¶¶30, 33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 13 (Compl. ¶75).
• Claim 13 recites an apparatus comprising a computer specially programmed for processing information for a bet, which includes:
  • A receiver configured to receive requests to notify users regarding a sporting event.
  • A memory for storing the request.
  • A specially programmed processor that detects postings of information regarding the event and generates notification messages.
  • A transmitter for sending the notification.
  • The computer is also configured to receive bet messages transmitted from a user device that includes a global positioning device for determining its location.
  • The computer is configured to process the bet messages to allow or disallow the wagers based on the location information.

U.S. Patent No. 10,147,266 - "Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems as the ’341 Patent: lack of remote access to gaming and the difficulty of enforcing jurisdictional restrictions on wagering (’266 Patent, col. 1:47-62, col. 6:58-7:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus with a computer that detects a posting about a gaming or sporting event and generates a notification message. The solution specifies that the computer either initiates a communication link to transmit the notification or sends it as an "electronic mail message." The system then receives a bet message from a user's communication device, which includes a global positioning device to determine its location. The computer uses this location information to determine if the bet is allowed and, if so, processes information for placing the bet, or if not, for disallowing it (’266 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶22).
• Technical Importance: The technology provided a technical framework for enabling remote, legally compliant wagering by using a user device's location to enforce geographic restrictions (Compl. ¶30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶90).
• Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a computer that:
  • Detects a posting of information regarding a gaming activity, gambling activity, or sporting event.
  • Generates a notification message regarding the event.
  • Initiates a communication link and transmits the notification message as an "electronic transmission" to a first communication device.
  • Receives a bet message transmitted from the first communication device or a second communication device.
  • The first or second communication device comprises a global positioning device that determines its position or location.
  • The computer determines if the bet is allowed or disallowed using the position or location information.
  • If allowed, the computer processes information for placing the bet; if disallowed, it processes information for disallowing the bet.

U.S. Patent No. 10,255,755 - "Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity"

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method and apparatus for remote wagering. The system involves a computer detecting a posting of information regarding a gaming or sporting event, generating and transmitting a notification about the event to a user's device, receiving a bet message that includes the device's location information, and using that location to determine whether to allow or disallow the bet (Compl. ¶23).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 2 (Compl. ¶103).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the PlayUp Mobile Wagering Platform, alleging its servers detect sporting events, notify users via the app or website, and use the mobile device’s geolocation data to permit or block wagers in compliance with state laws (Compl. ¶¶104-109).

U.S. Patent No. 9,965,920 - "Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an apparatus for remote sports betting that includes a processor for detecting posted information about a sporting event, generating a notification, receiving a bet message, and processing the bet. A distinguishing feature is a transmitter programmed to transmit "video information or audio information regarding, and obtained at, the sporting event" back to the user's communication device (Compl. ¶20).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 16 (Compl. ¶116).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the PlayUp platform infringes by performing the core wagering functions and further alleges that the platform's transmission of "live game status updates" constitutes the claimed transmission of "video information" (Compl. ¶¶117, 123). Figure Group D shows a live score update for a tennis match within the PlayUp interface, offered as evidence for this element (Compl. p. 51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "PlayUp branded Mobile Wagering Platform," which includes the PlayUp websites (such as nj.playupusa.com) and related mobile applications (such as PlayUp Sportsbook) (Compl. ¶54). The system is comprised of hardware (servers) and software that collectively operate to provide gambling and event wagering services to users in the United States (Compl. ¶54).
• Functionality and Market Context: The platform allows users to view schedules and odds for sporting events, place wagers, and manage funds (Compl. ¶76). A central feature of the accused platform is its use of geolocation technology to ensure compliance with state-specific gambling laws. The complaint alleges that PlayUp requires all users to consent to location tracking and to enable GPS and other location services on their devices as a condition of placing wagers (Compl. ¶55, ¶81). Figure Group B from the complaint shows the "CONSENT TO TRACK LOCATION OF YOUR WIRELESS DEVICE" terms, which state that the app must access GPS and that attempts to circumvent location tracking may lead to account closure (Compl. p. 26). The platform is alleged to be licensed and operating in numerous U.S. states (Compl. ¶56).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,043,341 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,147,266 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '920 Patent infringement claim may be one of claim scope: does the term "video information... obtained at, the sporting event" encompass the text-based "live game status updates" that the complaint accuses? (Compl. ¶123). The interpretation of this term could be critical, as a court may need to decide if simple score data, as depicted in the complaint's Figure Group D, meets the definition of "video information" as understood in the context of the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The asserted claims require the bet message to contain location information "at a time of a transmission of the bet message" ('341 Patent, Claim 13) or for the location data to be "transmitted contemporaneous with the bet message" ('266 Patent, Compl. ¶95). This raises an evidentiary question about the precise timing and data structure of the accused system's transmissions. The court may need to examine what evidence supports the allegation that the location data and the bet data are packaged and sent together in the manner required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "global positioning device" (appears in asserted claims of all four patents)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological linchpin of the patents' solution for jurisdictional compliance. Its construction is critical because the accused platform uses a suite of modern geolocation techniques, while the patent's 2002 priority date predates their widespread mobile implementation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the claims read on modern systems that use not just satellite-based GPS but also Wi-Fi triangulation, cell tower location, and IP address geolocation, which the complaint alludes to (Compl. ¶81, ¶94).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the purpose of the device as being "utilized to determine the position or location of the user communication device 20 so as to, for example, determine a jurisdiction in which the user communication device 20 is located and/or is being utilized" (’341 Patent, col. 17:34-39). This functional language may support a construction that is not limited to a specific technology but covers any device that performs the claimed function of determining a jurisdictionally-relevant location.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly names the device a "global positioning system (GPS) device 20J" (’341 Patent, col. 36:1-3) and the abstract refers to "global positioning technology" (’341 Patent, Abstract). This language could support a narrower construction limited to the common understanding of GPS at the time of invention—namely, satellite-based systems.

• The Term: "detects a posting of information" (appears in asserted claims of all four patents)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the triggering event for the patented notification process. The central dispute may be whether the term requires detecting an external, third-party "posting" of new information (e.g., a news wire or an update from a league) versus merely detecting an internal change to the operator's own data, such as updating betting odds.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, reciting only "a posting of information regarding a gaming activity" (’266 Patent, Claim 1). This could be interpreted to encompass internal data updates, such as when the platform itself "posts" new odds to its own system for users to see. The complaint alleges the accused processor detects postings of "wagering odds" and "wager status" (Compl. ¶79, ¶92).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flow chart shows the process beginning with "AWAIT POSTING OF GAMING EVENT(S)" (’341 Patent, FIG. 9A, step 901), which could imply waiting for an external event to occur. The background also notes that individuals "typically do not have access to certain information" (’341 Patent, col. 1:55-57), which may suggest the invention is about finding and relaying newly available external information rather than just managing internal data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is and will be willful and deliberate to the extent it continues after receiving notice of the asserted patents via service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶85, 98, 111, 125).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "global positioning device," originating from a 2002 priority date, be construed to cover the suite of modern geolocation technologies (e.g., IP-based geolocation, Wi-Fi triangulation) allegedly used by the accused online platform, or is its meaning limited to the satellite-based GPS systems prevalent at the time?
• A second key question will be one of technological equivalence, particularly for the '920 Patent: does the accused platform's transmission of text-based "live game status updates" constitute the "video information... obtained at, the sporting event" as required by the claim language, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the technology claimed and the functionality provided?
• An evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what evidence will support the complaint’s allegations that the accused platform performs the specific, sequential process of "detecting a posting of information" and then "generating a notification message," as distinct from a generic and continuous refresh of data to an active user's interface?