PTAB

IPR2017-01333

FanDuel Inc v. Interactive Games LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Wireless Gaming with Location-Dependent Gaming Functions
  • Brief Description: The ’952 patent describes a system for controlling gaming activities on a user’s wireless device based on its physical location. The system uses a processor to determine the device’s location, identify a plurality of location-dependent betting parameters, and determine the outcome of a bet based on those parameters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are obvious over Carter in view of Barton

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carter (Application # 2002/0147049) and Barton (Application # 2004/0162124).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Carter, a primary reference from the patent’s prosecution, disclosed a location-based mobile gaming system but was found by the PTAB to teach only a single "selectable betting parameter" (a distinct wager amount), not the claimed "plurality." Petitioner asserted that Barton supplied the missing elements. Barton taught a "mobile casino" on a vehicle (e.g., a train) that modifies game procedures as it crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Specifically, Barton disclosed that a master computer determines if modifications are needed based on the new jurisdiction’s laws and can change multiple parameters, such as different "payoff amounts" and "payoff frequencies." Petitioner contended that combining Barton’s disclosure of multiple, location-dependent betting parameters with Carter’s foundational system rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Barton’s teachings with Carter's system to improve it. Carter’s system was designed to comply with local gaming laws, and Barton taught that various jurisdictions regulate multiple betting parameters beyond just the wager amount. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate all applicable parameters (wager amount, payoff amount, payoff frequency) into Carter’s jurisdictional profiles to ensure comprehensive legal compliance, which was a recognized goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The proposed modification involved incorporating known types of gaming parameters into the existing database and lookup structure of Carter’s system, which was a straightforward application of known design principles to achieve the predictable result of a more robust, compliant gaming system.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3 and 6 are obvious over Carter in view of Barton and Walker

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carter (Application # 2002/0147049), Barton (Application # 2004/0162124), and Walker (Application # 2004/0005919).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Carter and Barton combination to further address the limitations of dependent claim 6, which required the system to "alter a user interface for a predetermined game" in response to the device’s location. Petitioner argued that Walker taught this specific limitation. Walker disclosed a system for activating features on a portable gaming device based on location-based conditions. Crucially, Walker taught that a feature could alter the user interface, for example, by displaying an "altered payout table" to the player when payout values for a game change.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Walker's user interface alteration into the Carter/Barton system to provide necessary feedback to the user. When game parameters like payout amounts change based on location, informing the user of these changes is important for gameplay and is often a legal requirement in regulated gaming markets. Altering the user interface as taught by Walker was presented as the most obvious way to inform the user of such changes.

Ground 3: Claims 1-3 and 6 are obvious over Carter in view of Martin

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carter (Application # 2002/0147049) and Martin (Patent 5,618,232).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative based on a potential broad construction of "selectable betting parameter" to include the binary act of prohibiting wagering altogether. Petitioner asserted that Martin taught a mobile gaming system on a vehicle that is "switchable between an amusement mode and a gaming or gambling mode" based on its geographic location. When in a jurisdiction where gambling is illegal, the system switched to "amusement mode," where no real-money wagering could occur. This location-based switching between a real-money mode (a first betting parameter) and a no-money mode (a second, different betting parameter) was argued to meet the claim limitation for a "plurality of selectable betting parameters."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Martin’s dual-mode functionality with Carter’s system to enhance user experience. Carter already disclosed the need to restrict gambling in certain jurisdictions. Martin provided an elegant solution: instead of simply disabling the game, it could be switched to a free-play "amusement mode." This would allow the user to continue playing even when in a restricted area, increasing user satisfaction while still complying with jurisdictional laws.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "selectable betting parameter": Petitioner argued that, consistent with the PTAB's findings during the original prosecution of the ’952 patent, this term should be construed as "a variable that contributes to the outcome of the wagering game." Examples cited from the prosecution history included a play option, a wager amount, game rules, a pay-off rate, a win option, or comp points. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Carter alone was insufficient, requiring a combination with a reference like Barton that taught multiple such variables.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3 and 6 of the ’952 patent as unpatentable.