AGS LLC v. Galaxy Gaming Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-01112
• Patent #: 7,175,180
• Filed: April 24, 2015
• Petitioner(s): AGS, LLC; In Bet Gaming, Inc.; In Bet, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Galaxy Gaming, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method For Playing Blackjack With A Three Card Poker Wager
• Brief Description: The ’180 patent relates to methods for playing card games that combine a primary game of Blackjack with a secondary, optional three-card poker side wager. The side wager is resolved independently before the main Blackjack hand is played to completion.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Roberts - Claims 1-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Roberts.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (Patent 5,636,843).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Roberts discloses every element of the challenged claims. Roberts teaches a method of playing Blackjack that includes an opportunity for players to make side or prop bets on various card combinations delivered during normal play. Specifically, Roberts discloses forming a three-card hand from the player’s initial two cards and the dealer’s up-card (a "non-player card"). This side bet is resolved based on predetermined rules and pay-out odds, after which the primary Blackjack game continues. Petitioner asserted that the resolution of this side bet in Roberts is independent of the outcome of the main Blackjack game, thus anticipating the claimed invention.
  • Key Aspects: Roberts explicitly teaches that its side-betting system can be used with "all combinations of one to four cards," which Petitioner argued inherently includes the three-card poker hand combination central to the ’180 patent.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Roberts in view of Wood - Claims 1-9 are obvious over Roberts in view of Wood.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (Patent 5,636,843), Wood (Patent 4,651,997).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Roberts provides the foundational method of adding a flexible side-betting system to a standard Blackjack game. Wood was cited for its disclosure of specific three-card games, including an "in-between" style game and wins based on achieving a pair or three-of-a-kind. While Roberts teaches a framework for side bets, Wood provides the specific, well-known game rules that could be implemented within that framework.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Roberts and Wood to enhance player enjoyment and create new gaming options, a common goal in the casino industry. Roberts expressly teaches applying its side-bet system to numerous card combinations, making the incorporation of a popular game like the one in Wood a simple and predictable design choice.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining known game rules with an existing betting structure was a routine practice in game design that would yield the predictable result of a new Blackjack variant.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Green - Claims 1-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by Green.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Green (Patent 6,182,969).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Green discloses a Blackjack game modified to include an optional side wager. In Green, the side wager is resolved by determining if a "side wager card" (such as the dealer's face-up card) has a rank that falls between the ranks of the player's two initial cards. This side wager is resolved, and the bet is settled, before the player continues with their main Blackjack hand. Green further discloses that cards can be assigned numerical rankings based on standard poker rules and that payouts can be increased for specific poker-style hands, such as when all three cards form a flush. Petitioner argued these teachings meet all limitations of the challenged claims.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 1-9 based on Roberts in view of Scarne and Roberts in view of Hoyle, arguing a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the well-known three-card games from Scarne (Yablon) and Hoyle (Three-Card Poker) into the Blackjack side-betting framework of Roberts. An additional anticipation ground was asserted based on Lofink (Patent 5,806,846).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms to clarify the scope of the claims for the IPR proceeding.

• "non-player card": Proposed construction was "a card that is either the dealer's card, a community card or any other card that does not form part of a player hand." Petitioner argued this construction was consistent with the ordinary meaning and was supported by statements made by the patent owner during the original prosecution of the ’180 patent. This broad definition was important for showing that prior art references teaching the use of a dealer's card or a community card met this limitation.
• "resolving": Proposed construction was "resolution of a wager or determination of a winner." Petitioner contended this term is not unique in the gaming art and that its broad ordinary meaning should apply. This construction was supported by the prosecution history, where the applicant explicitly stated that "resolving" could take many forms and was broadly defined.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’180 patent as unpatentable on all asserted grounds.