PTAB

IPR2022-01447

DraftKings Inc v. Ag 18 LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System and Method for Peer-to-Peer Gaming
Brief Description: The ’498 patent discloses a computer-server-based system for peer-to-peer gaming. The system determines a player's current physical location and, based on that location, automatically creates and presents a list of legally permissible gaming options, which can include limits on wagers or game types to ensure compliance with jurisdictional laws.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Amaitis (Application # 2007/0054739) and Bryson (Patent 8,460,109).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Amaitis discloses a server-based, peer-to-peer wireless gaming system that enables gameplay between users at remote locations. Amaitis teaches using location verification to permit or disallow gaming activities based on jurisdiction but does not explicitly disclose generating a customized list of gaming options based on that location. Petitioner asserted that Bryson supplies this missing element by teaching a system that determines a device’s location to create and present a personalized "wagering game presentation" that is modified to comply with the legal requirements of the device's jurisdiction.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bryson’s intelligent, location-based filtering of gaming options with Amaitis’s peer-to-peer matching system. The combination would predictably result in an improved user experience by providing more "versatile and exciting" gaming options, thereby increasing player engagement, while also ensuring compliance with jurisdictional regulations—a stated goal of both references.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involves applying known software customization techniques to similar server-based online gaming systems to achieve predictable benefits.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Amaitis (Application # 2007/0054739), Bryson (Patent 8,460,109), and Oberberger (Application # 2009/0088253).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented to the extent the combination of Amaitis and Bryson was found not to teach matching players based on a selected "betting range." Petitioner argued Oberberger explicitly teaches this limitation. Oberberger discloses a server that matches players based on "compatible selections of wager level," such as a "minimum bet amount or a maximum allowable bet," which corresponds directly to the claimed "betting range."
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Oberberger's wager-level matching to the Amaitis/Bryson system to attract a wider range of players. By matching players with similar bankroll sizes or betting preferences, the system avoids discouraging casual players from competing against "high rollers," thereby increasing overall player participation, engagement, and retention.

Prior Art Relied Upon: The combination of Amaitis, Bryson, and Oberberger, further in view of Frenkel (Application # 2007/0015584) and Schlottmann (Application # 2007/0298857).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claims related to risk management and tournaments. For claims 2-3 (risk management), Petitioner argued Frenkel teaches implementing collusion detection software that monitors player gaming behavior for prohibited activity and can bar suspected players from a game. For claims 18-20 (tournaments), Petitioner asserted Schlottmann discloses "self-scheduled tournaments," which are functionally identical to the claimed "delayed tournament," allowing players to compete at different, overlapping times within a designated period.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would integrate Frenkel's risk management features to prevent cheating and increase player trust in the system. Similarly, a POSITA would incorporate Schlottmann's delayed tournament structure as it is particularly suitable for online gaming, offering players the flexibility to compete from remote locations without the constraints of synchronous, real-time play.

Module Terms: Petitioner argued that terms recited in claims 17-20, such as "risk management module," "matching engine module," and "tournament administration module," are means-plus-function terms subject to 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. Petitioner contended these terms are nonce words that fail to recite sufficient structure for performing their claimed functions and should be construed as corresponding to the structures, materials, or acts described in the specification and their equivalents. This construction is central to mapping the functions of these modules to the prior art's disclosure of servers performing identical functions.

§314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the co-pending district court litigation was in a very early stage. At the time of filing, no answer, scheduling order, or claim construction briefing had occurred, meaning an IPR would be an effective and efficient alternative to litigation.
§325(d) (Advanced Bionics Factors): Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that the petition raised new issues. The core prior art references of Bryson, Amaitis, and Schlottmann were never cited or considered by the Examiner during prosecution. While Frenkel was cited in an IDS, the Examiner never relied on it in any rejection. Petitioner contended these references teach the very limitations the patent owner relied upon to overcome prior art during prosecution, specifically the creation of a list of games that are legal in the player's current location.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’498 patent as unpatentable.