PTAB

IPR2017-01333

FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Gaming with Location-Dependent Functions
  • Brief Description: The ’952 patent discloses a system for controlling gaming activities on mobile devices based on the user's physical location. The system uses a server to communicate with wireless gaming terminals to permit, disable, or modify gaming functions depending on whether the device is located within a predefined area where gaming is permitted by law.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Carter and Barton - 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 asserted that Carter, a primary reference during prosecution, teaches a location-based mobile gaming system where a server determines jurisdictional rules. However, during prosecution, Carter was found to lack a "plurality of selectable betting parameters." Petitioner argued that Barton, which teaches a "mobile casino" on a vehicle that modifies gaming procedures when crossing jurisdictional lines, supplies the missing elements. Specifically, Barton discloses modifying both "payoff amount" and "payoff frequency" based on location, which constitute the required plurality of parameters that affect a game's outcome.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Barton’s teaching of modifying multiple game parameters with Carter's location-based system to ensure full compliance with the varied and specific gaming laws in different jurisdictions. Because Carter already recognized the need to comply with local laws, and those laws often regulate specific parameters like payout rates, this combination would be a logical and predictable way to create a more robust and compliant system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying known gaming parameters from Barton to the jurisdictional profile database described in Carter, a straightforward integration of compatible technologies to achieve the predictable result of enhanced legal compliance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Carter, Barton, and Walker - 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 builds on the Carter/Barton combination to address the limitations of claim 6, which requires altering a user interface in response to determining the user's location. Petitioner argued that Walker teaches activating features on a gaming device based on location, including altering the user interface by displaying an "altered payout table." This directly teaches the user interface alteration recited in claim 6.
    • Motivation to Combine: After combining Carter and Barton to modify game parameters based on location, a POSITA would be motivated by Walker to also alter the user interface to inform the user of these changes. Displaying the new, location-specific parameters (e.g., a new payout table) is the most obvious way to inform the user of changes that impact the game, enhancing user experience and complying with legal requirements to display such information prominently.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Carter and Martin - 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, arguing that if "selectable betting parameter" is construed broadly to include the binary choice of either allowing or prohibiting wagering, then Martin in view of Carter renders the claims obvious. Martin teaches a mobile gaming system that is switchable between a "gaming or gambling mode" and a non-wagering "amusement mode" based on its geographic location. This location-based switch between two distinct modes (one with betting, one without) constitutes a "plurality of selectable betting parameters."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Martin's mode-switching functionality with Carter's location-based system to improve user satisfaction. Rather than simply deactivating a game in a jurisdiction where gambling is prohibited, the system could switch to Martin's "amusement mode," allowing the user to continue playing without wagering. This would fulfill Carter's goal of "handing off" a gaming experience across jurisdictions with different rules while complying with local laws.
    • Key Aspects: This combination also allegedly renders claim 6 obvious because switching from gaming to amusement mode necessarily alters the user interface, for example, by removing betting functions or enabling an arbitrary score increment feature taught by Martin.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Term: "selectable betting parameter"
  • Petitioner's Proposed Construction: Petitioner adopted the construction used by the PTAB during prosecution of the ’952 patent, defining the term to include "a variable that contributes to the outcome of the wagering game," providing examples such as "a pay-off rate, a win option, or comp points or status."
  • Importance: This construction is central to the petition's arguments. It allows Petitioner to argue that the "payoff amount" and "payoff frequency" taught by Barton, and the "gaming mode" and "amusement mode" taught by Martin, all fall within the scope of the term, thereby remedying the deficiency that led to the patent's allowance.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3 and 6 of Patent 9,306,952 as unpatentable.