Dartconnect LLC v. Darts Atlas LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DartConnect LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Darts Atlas, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Neugeboren O'Dowd PC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00420, W.D. Tex., 06/05/23
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's principal place of business being located in Austin, Texas, within the Western District of Texas, where acts of infringement are alleged to have occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online dart scoring and tournament platform infringes patents related to electronic dart scoring systems and integrated tournament management.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using software on mobile and cloud-based platforms to automate the scoring, statistics, and logistical management for the traditional game of steel-tipped darts.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of at least November 2, 2022. The '988 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the '337 Patent, indicating a focused inventive effort and a shared technical disclosure between the two patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-08-21	Priority Date for '337 and '988 Patents
2018-06-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,989,337 Issue Date
2019-10-15	U.S. Patent No. 10,443,988 Issue Date
2022-11-02	Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of patents
2023-06-05	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,989,337, "Dart Scoring System," issued June 5, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies several shortcomings with traditional and early electronic dart scoring methods. These include mathematical errors and slow gameplay in manual scoring; the site-specific and intimidating nature of wall-mounted electronic dartboards; poor score visibility for spectators; logistical difficulties in scheduling games; and scoring inaccuracies from inconsistent rule applications ('988 Patent, col. 1:21-2:8; Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that combines a traditional steel-tipped dart and sisal dartboard with modern computing devices. A "mobile computing scoring device" (e.g., a tablet or smartphone) is used to run a scoring interface, allowing a user to input scores. This interface and the real-time scores can then be transmitted to and displayed on a separate "remote mobile computing device," allowing spectators or remote opponents to follow the game live ('337 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to modernize the traditional steel-tipped darts experience by providing the accuracy and data-tracking benefits of electronic scoring without requiring players to abandon standard equipment or learn complex new systems (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 10 (Compl. ¶20, ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 (System): A dart game system comprising: (i) a steel-tipped dart; (ii) a sisal dart board; (iii) at least one first mobile computing scoring device with a scoring interface; and (iv) a remote mobile computing device adapted to receive the scoring interface for real-time display.
• Independent Claim 10 (Method): A method of conducting a dart game comprising: (i) initiating a dart game; (ii) recording a player's scores via a user interface on a mobile computing device; and (iii) sharing the user interface and scores in near real-time with at least one remote location.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,443,988, "Dart Scoring System," issued October 15, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same set of problems as its parent '337 Patent, with a particular focus on the challenges of managing multi-player tournaments ('988 Patent, col. 1:38-41; Compl. ¶16).
• The Patented Solution: The '988 Patent describes a more comprehensive, integrated platform for facilitating entire dart tournaments. The platform architecture consists of an "electronic bracket program" for managing matchups, a "cloud server application" for central data processing, and an "electronic dart scoring application" running on multiple mobile devices. The system is designed to gather a master player list, generate a tournament record (with rules and settings), send this data to the scoring devices, score the matches, and then "automatically" send the results back to the cloud in "substantially real-time" to advance players in the tournament bracket ('988 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:11-39).
• Technical Importance: This integrated platform aimed to automate the complex and error-prone logistics of running a dart tournament, from player registration and bracketing to real-time scoring and results publication (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent platform claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Independent Claim 1 (Platform): An integrated dart scoring platform comprising an "electronic bracket program", a "cloud server application", an "electronic dart scoring application", and APIs, which is configured to: (i) "gather" a master tournament player list; (ii) "generate" a tournament record; (iii) "send" the list and record to mobile devices; (iv) "score" tournament matches on the devices; (v) "automatically send" scores in substantially real-time to the cloud server and bracket program; and (vi) "automatically advance" players in the bracket based on the scores.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Systems" are identified as the "Darts Atlas online platform" available at www.dartsatlas.com and the associated kiosk platform at kiosk.dartsatlas.com (Compl. ¶19, ¶41).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Systems are dart scoring systems used for individual games and tournaments (Compl. ¶19). The functionality described includes facilitating automatic, real-time scoring for dart games and tournaments, and allowing users to initiate and score games through the platform (Compl. ¶11, ¶17, ¶33). The complaint alleges that the Accused Systems provide instructions and tools for users to set up tournaments, implying functionality for player registration and match management (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3, 4, and 6) that are not provided with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement theories presented in the complaint.

'337 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least system claim 1 and method claim 10, and induced infringement of at least method claim 10 (Compl. ¶19, ¶21, ¶29). The direct infringement theory posits that the Accused Systems, when placed into operation by Defendant or its customers, perform the patented method of initiating a game, recording scores on a device, and sharing the results (Compl. ¶21). The inducement theory alleges that Defendant knowingly encourages its customers to perform this infringing method by providing the Accused Systems and instructions for their use (Compl. ¶33, ¶35). To support this, the complaint describes visual evidence in Exhibit 5, including a screenshot of the tournament creation page on the Darts Atlas website, which allegedly demonstrates how Defendant encourages users to set up and score dart games using the platform (Compl. ¶33).

'988 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least platform claim 1 (Compl. ¶41-42). The infringement theory alleges that the Accused Systems constitute an integrated platform that embodies the limitations of the claim. This includes performing the functions of facilitating automatic, real-time scoring for tournaments using mobile devices, automatically advancing players through tournament brackets based on scores, and recording tournament entries and results (Compl. ¶11, ¶17, ¶42). The allegation suggests the Darts Atlas platform functions as the claimed combination of an electronic bracket program, a cloud server, and a scoring application.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For the '337 Patent, a question may arise as to whether Defendant's web-based platform, accessed via a browser on a phone or a stationary kiosk, meets the claim limitation of a "mobile computing scoring device." For the '988 Patent, a key question will be whether the Darts Atlas architecture maps onto the specifically claimed components of an "electronic bracket program" and a "cloud server application".
• Technical Questions: The analysis of the '988 Patent will likely require evidence of how the accused platform actually operates. A central question is whether it "automatically" sends scores and advances players in "substantially real-time" upon match completion, as required by the claim, or if there are manual steps or significant delays in the process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "mobile computing scoring device" ('337 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to system claim 1. Its construction will determine whether the accused online and kiosk-based platform, which may be accessed by various types of user devices, falls within the scope of the claimed system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition, which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any portable, network-enabled device capable of running the scoring interface ('337 Patent, col. 4:63-65).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict what appear to be handheld devices like smartphones or tablets as the scoring device (e.g., '337 Patent, Fig. 1, item 114). This could be used to argue that the term should be limited to such self-contained, portable devices rather than a web service accessed on a stationary kiosk.

• Term: "automatically sending one or more scores in substantially real-time" ('988 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the purported novelty of the '988 patent's integrated tournament system. The definitions of "automatically" and "substantially real-time" are critical for determining infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of sending scores upon match completion to the cloud server and bracket program but does not impose a specific time constraint on "substantially real-time," which could support a construction that simply means "without undue or manual delay" ('988 Patent, col. 2:32-39). "Automatically" could be argued to mean the system acts without requiring new human intervention after the final score is entered.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section criticizes prior art for slowing game play and preventing spectators from keeping up ('988 Patent, col. 1:46-48, 1:56-60). This context may support a narrower construction requiring near-instantaneous transmission and bracket updates to solve those stated problems.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a count for induced infringement of the '337 Patent (Count II). It alleges that Defendant provides the Accused Systems with instructions and encouragement for its customers to perform the patented method of scoring dart games. This allegation is supported by references to Defendant's website, including pages for user sign-up and new tournament creation (Compl. ¶33, ¶35).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of both the '337 and '988 patents since at least November 2, 2022, and that its subsequent infringement has been knowing, willful, and intentional, forming a basis for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶22, ¶24, ¶43, ¶45).

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

• A central issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the components of Defendant's web-based platform and kiosk system be mapped onto the specific claim elements of the '337 patent's "mobile computing scoring device" and the '988 patent's more structurally defined "electronic bracket program" and "cloud server application"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: does the accused Darts Atlas platform perform the specific, automated, and "substantially real-time" data transmission and bracket-advancement functions required by Claim 1 of the '988 patent, and what is the precise technical scope of those terms as defined by the patent's specification?
• For the '337 patent, a primary question for the inducement claim will be whether evidence from Defendant's website and user-facing instructions demonstrates a specific intent to encourage users to perform the patented method, as opposed to merely providing a functional tool.