PTAB

IPR2017-01491

FanDuel Inc v. Interactive Games LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Zone Dependent Payout Percentage
  • Brief Description: The ’058 patent describes a system for changing the configuration of a wagering game played on a mobile device based on the determined physical location of that device. Different geographic zones are associated with different game configurations, such as rules, payout percentages, or outcome probabilities.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Carter and Walker - Claims 1, 7-9, and 19 are obvious over Carter in view of Walker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carter (Application # 2002/0147049) and Walker (Application # 2004/0005919).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Carter taught the core framework of the challenged claims: a location-based mobile gaming system where a device's location is determined as it moves between different zones. Each zone is associated with a "jurisdictional profile" that dictates permitted gaming opportunities and restrictions. However, Carter did not explicitly disclose that these profiles included rules or algorithms that affect game outcomes. Petitioner asserted that Walker supplied this missing element by teaching the activation of location-specific "features" on a gaming device that directly affect game outcomes, such as modifying the probability of a win. Walker's features, which meet the ’058 patent’s definition of a "game configuration," are enabled or disabled based on the device's location (e.g., near a casino door versus a poker room, or in one jurisdiction versus another). The combination of Carter’s location-based zone system with Walker’s location-based outcome-affecting features allegedly rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Walker's location-specific game features with Carter's jurisdictional profiles for several reasons. The primary motivations were to enhance the player's gaming experience, thereby increasing revenue as taught by Walker, and to comply with varying jurisdictional gaming regulations, such as minimum payout percentages, which are directly related to outcome probabilities.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because incorporating Walker's outcome probability features into Carter's existing database of jurisdictional profiles was a straightforward application of known software design. The result—a server determining a game configuration based on location—was predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Luciano and Alcorn - Claims 1, 7-9, and 19 are obvious over Luciano in view of Alcorn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Luciano (Patent 7,035,626) and Alcorn (Patent 6,104,815).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Luciano disclosed a mobile gaming system that determines an "allowed betting configuration" based on a cell phone's location. For example, a user in Massachusetts is restricted to purchasing lottery tickets, while a user in Nevada is permitted to play "full Nevada-style games." This change in the type of game allowed based on location met the limitation of determining different "game configurations" for different locations. Luciano further disclosed generating game outcomes based on the determined configuration and displaying them on the user's phone. Petitioner argued that Alcorn, which taught a remote gaming system where a server determines a game outcome, calculates a "winning amount" (payout), and credits a player's account, provided the teachings for determining payouts and crediting accounts that were not explicitly detailed in Luciano.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Alcorn's well-established cashless gaming functionalities with Luciano's location-based system to improve its commercial viability and provide a complete gaming experience. Incorporating known methods for determining payouts and managing player accounts, as taught by Alcorn, was a logical and necessary step to make Luciano's system functional and was a common practice in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration would have been straightforward, as cashless gaming systems were well-known. A POSITA would have expected Luciano's server to be capable of determining a payout based on a game outcome and crediting the correct amount to a player's account.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 1 and 6 based on Carter/Walker and Luciano/Alcorn in further view of the Slot Payout Webpage (a 2005 archived webpage). This reference was used primarily to show that using an alphabetically ordered lookup table to associate locations with specific payout percentages was a well-known and obvious design choice for organizing such data, thus rendering claim 6 obvious.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "game configuration": Petitioner argued that for the purposes of this inter partes review (IPR), the broadest reasonable construction of this term, based on the specification and claim language, must include "any rules or algorithms that influence resolutions, results or any other outcome of a game." This construction was asserted as critical because the claims require the "game configuration" to be used to "generate a game outcome," distinguishing it from merely selecting a type of game. Walker's outcome-affecting "features" and Luciano's location-dependent "betting configurations" were argued to fall within this construction.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 6-9, and 19 of Patent 8,771,058 as unpatentable.