PTAB

IPR2025-01072

Light & Wonder Inc v. Evolution Malta Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems, Methods, and Media for Implementing Internet-Based Wagering
  • Brief Description: The ’014 patent describes a wagering system for a roulette game. The system deviates from conventional roulette by randomly selecting one or more positions on the wheel prior to the ball landing and assigning an increased payout to those positions if a player has placed a bet on the winning selected number.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Kido - Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are anticipated by or obvious over Kido.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kido (Application # 2008/0248853).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Kido discloses every limitation of the independent claims. Kido describes a multi-player roulette gaming system with a central roulette wheel and multiple player stations, each having a graphical user interface (GUI). The system’s processor is configured to randomly select a "star mark" position on the wheel for a given spin. This selection occurs after betting is closed but prior to the ball falling into an outcome position. If the ball lands on the "star mark" position and a player has bet on that number, the system awards an enhanced payout, such as an accumulated progressive bonus, which is higher than a standard payout for a non-star-marked win. Petitioner contended that Kido's server and station CPUs collectively function as the claimed "at least one hardware processor."
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that Kido’s random selection of the special payout position occurs via a hardware processor before the ball lands, directly teaching a key limitation of the challenged claims. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Kido’s disclosure of visual effects like an "electric spectacular" renders obvious a "lightning visual effect" (claims 3, 11, 19) as a simple design choice. Similarly, the motivation to avoid monotonous gameplay would have made it obvious to select more than one special payout position (claims 5, 13, 21).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kido and Yee - Claims 8, 16, and 24 are obvious over Kido in view of Yee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kido (Application # 2008/0248853) and Yee (Patent 9,600,974).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that dependent claims 8, 16, and 24 require the processor to indicate a "500x" multiplier at the selected position on the GUI's roulette board. While Kido provided the base system with a randomly selected special payout position, Yee taught a roulette system with enhanced payouts calculated using a randomly selected multiplier. Yee expressly disclosed that multipliers could be "500 times" the wager and taught displaying the multiplier value to the player.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Yee’s explicit teaching of a 500x multiplier and its display with Kido's system for predictable results. The combination would serve the shared objective of both references: making the game more exciting and avoiding "monotonous" play. Displaying the specific multiplier value, as taught by Yee, would clearly inform players of the potential enhanced payout, thereby increasing player engagement, which provides a strong motivation for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success as the combination involved applying a known technique (displaying a multiplier) from one roulette system to a similar system to achieve a predictable improvement in user experience.

Ground 3: Anticipation/Obviousness over Baron - Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are anticipated by or obvious over Baron.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baron (Application # 2016/0155296).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Baron independently disclosed all limitations of the independent claims. Baron described a roulette game where, for a single spin, a processor generates a plurality of random roulette outcomes (e.g., one primary and two ancillary). These outcomes are generated prior to the ball landing. A player places a bet on a single "predicted roulette outcome." The system then compares the player's bet to the randomly generated outcomes. The payout increased based on the number of matches (e.g., 7:1 for one match, 100:1 for two, and a progressive pot for three). This system, Petitioner contended, met all claim limitations, including randomly selecting a position and determining a first payout (e.g., the POT payout) that is higher than a second payout (e.g., a standard win or no win).
    • Key Aspects: Similar to the Kido argument, Petitioner focused on Baron's teaching of generating the special outcome numbers via a processor before the ball lands. This approach, which Baron suggested adds excitement for players, was argued to be directly applicable to the claimed invention.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) for claims 8, 16, and 24 based on the combination of Baron and Yee, relying on the same motivation-to-combine logic presented for Kido and Yee.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 21-24 of the ’014 patent as unpatentable.